Table 2.

Comparison of treatment

Disease	Laser	Therapy parameters	Fitzpatrick scale	Number of cases	Clinical outcome	Adverse events	Reference
Melasma	755‐nm picosecond laser with DLA and with a fullbeam	Coupled with a DLA on one side of the face and without DLA (flat optics) on the other side: 8‐mm spot, fluence of 0.40 J/cm2, 2.5 Hz for five treatments at 1‐month intervals	IV–V	18 (14 patients completed)	All patients had significant improvement in pigment clearance without significant differences in different treatment sides	Mild PIH and erythema	[36]
Acne scar	NAFL and P-DOE	P-DOE side: a 450-ps pulse duration, 2-dimensional 10 × 10 mm2 array of pulses, fluence of 130–430 mJ/cm2, 5–10 Hz, 10-mm spot size the NAFL side: 25–35 J/cm2 at level 4–6 over four to eight passes	III–IV III (n = 12); IV (n = 13)	25	P-DOE provides better clinical results, fewer side effects, and more improvements at the follow-up visit	Erythema, oedema, dryness; mild hyperpigmentation only on the NAFL side	[37]
Acne scar	The fractional Nd:YAG 1064-nm picosecond laser with FLA and fractional 1550-nm erbium fiber	The fractional Nd:YAG 1064-nm picosecond laser with FLA: spot size of 8 mm, fluence of 0.3–0.4 J, and frequency of 10 Hz for one pass; the fractional 1550-nm erbium fiber laser: 100–400 spots/cm2, energy of 25–30 J/cm2 for two passes total four times at 4-week intervals	III–IV III (n = 27); IV (n = 3)	30 (27 patients completed)	Median scores of both devices were significantly improved from baseline, and no significant difference between the two devices	Erythema, hyperpigmentation, pinpoint bleeding, pain	[38]
Acne scar	FxCO2 and FxPico	FxPico:8 mm spot size, a fluence of 0.8 J/cm2, 5 Hz repetitive rate; FxCO2: 3 ms pulse duration, a power of 10 W, depth of penetration about 350 to 400 mm	III–V	25	Both devices caused significant reduction in the scar volume without significant difference between them	Scarring, persistent erythema; PIH was only present in FxCO2 sides	[39]