Skin AgingNCT07122310
Comparative Study of a 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser Versus IPL in Facial Rejuvenation
A study testing 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay) and Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System) in people with Skin Aging and Skin Rejuvenation, run by Huashan Hospital at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted at Huashan Hospital, Fudan University. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of two non-invasive treatment options-1064-nm fractional picosecond laser and intense pulsed light (IPL)-for facial rejuvenation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 30 to 60 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Skin Aging, Skin Rejuvenation, Photoaging
- What is being tested?
- 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay) and Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 38 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 26 Sep 2021to 19 Jun 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 30 to 60 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- (1)Individuals aged 30-60 years with a GSP score of 1-4;(2)Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-IV;(3)Written informed consent obtained.
Who cannot join
- (1)Pregnant or lactating women;(2)Patients with severe systemic diseases;(3)Individuals with coagulation dysfunction;(4)Patients with mental disorders;(5)Photosensitive individuals;(6)Individuals with infections at the treatment site;(7)Individuals who have used photosensitive drugs within 4 weeks;(8)Individuals who have received other cosmetic treatments such as laser, intense pulsed light (IPL), radiofrequency, chemical peels (e.g., glycolic acid), fillers, etc., within 6 months;(9)Individuals with a personal or family history of keloids;(10)Individuals with a personal or family history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma or melanoma;(11)Individuals with a personal or family history of vitiligo;(12)Individuals with a history of intense sun exposure or ultraviolet (UV) radiation within 1 month.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
Huashan Hospital, Fudan University
Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, 200040
About this study
Official title: A Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of a 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser Versus Intense Pulsed Light in Facial Rejuvenation
This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted at Huashan Hospital, Fudan University. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of two non-invasive treatment options-1064-nm fractional picosecond laser and intense pulsed light (IPL)-for facial rejuvenation. A total of 38 participants seeking cosmetic improvement were randomly assigned to receive three sessions of either picosecond laser or IPL treatment at 4-6 week intervals.
Each participant was monitored throughout the treatment period and at one month after the final session. The study assessed improvements in skin texture, pigmentation, and wrinkles, as well as treatment-related side effects. All participants provided informed consent and received standardized post-treatment care instructions, including moisturization and sun protection. The results of this study may help guide non-surgical treatment options for skin aging.
- Conditions
- Skin Aging, Skin Rejuvenation, Photoaging
- Being tested
- 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay), Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System)
- Keywords
- Skin Rejuvenation, Picosecond laser, Intense pulsed light
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay)Device
Intervention Name: 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay) Participants in this group received full-face treatments using a PicoWay® laser system (Candela, Wayland, MA, USA) equipped with a 1064-nm RESOLVE fractional handpiece. Treatment parameters included a 6 mm spot size, 6 Hz repetition rate, 450 ps pulse duration, and energy settings ranging from 1.5 to 2.3 mJ per microbeam. Each session consisted of 2-3 passes (approximately 2000-4000 pulses), adjusted based on individual response. Three sessions were delivered at 4-6-week intervals. Cold compresses were applied for 20 minutes immediately post-treatment.
Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System)Device
Intervention Name: Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System)
Intervention Description:
Participants in this group underwent full-face treatments using an M22® IPL system (Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel) with a 560 nm cutoff filter. Treatment parameters included a pulse duration of 3.5-4 ms, pulse delay of 25-30 ms, and fluence of 12-18 J/cm², adjusted based on individual response. Each treatment involved approximately 40-60 pulses. Three sessions were performed at 4-6-week intervals. A layer of medical ultrasound gel was applied before treatment and maintained for 15-20 minutes post-treatment.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Picosecond Laser Group | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay) |
| Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) Group | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Blinded GSP (Global Score for Photoaging) assessment by two dermatologists
Global skin photoaging score assessed by blinded dermatologists using the Global Skin Photoaging (GSP) Scale. Scale range: 0-4, where higher scores indicate more severe photoaging.
Measured: 1 month after third treatment (approximately 12-16 weeks after baseline)
Secondary outcomes (7)
Blinded GSP scoring
Global skin photoaging score assessed by blinded dermatologists using the Global Skin Photoaging (GSP) Scale. Scale range: 0-4, where higher scores indicate more severe photoaging.
The scoring criteria are defined as follows:
0: Smooth skin without visible wrinkles or pigmentary heterogeneity in cheeks, forehead, or perioral regions
- Discrete focus of textural roughness, dyschromia, or fine lines in one facial region (cheeks/forehead/perioral)
- Two distinct areas demonstrating textural roughness, dyschromia, or fine lines; OR concurrent manifestations (roughness + dyschromia + wrinkles) in one region
- Three affected areas; OR concurrent manifestations in two regions
- Photodamage exceeding grade 3 criteria
Measured: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (approximately 4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (approximately 8-12 weeks after baseline)
Regional Fine Line and Dyschromia Grading by Dermatologists
Fine lines graded on the Modified Fine Line Improvement Scale (-1 to 4: -1=worsening, 0=no change, 1=1-25% improvement, 2=25-50%, 3=50-75%, 4=75-100%; higher scores = greater improvement).
Dyschromia graded on the Modified Dyschromia Improvement Scale (-1 to 4: -1=increased severity, 0=no change, 1=1-25% reduction, 2=25-50% reduction, 3=50-75% reduction, 4=75-99% reduction; higher scores = greater improvement).
Measured: before second treatment (approximately 4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (approximately 8-12 weeks after baseline), and 1 month after third treatment (approximately 12-16 weeks after baseline)
Quantitative Assessment of Skin Roughness Using C-Cube Imaging System
Skin surface roughness will be objectively quantified using the C-Cube high-resolution imaging system (Pixience, Toulouse, France). Standardized images will be captured from predefined facial regions (e.g., cheek or forehead) under consistent lighting and positioning conditions. Roughness values will be automatically calculated by the system's built-in analysis software. Measurements will be performed at baseline, second, third, and fourth follow-up visits to monitor treatment-induced changes.
Measured: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Quantitative Skin Pigmentation and Erythema Assessment Using SkinColorCatch
Objective colorimetric measurements will be performed using the Delfin SkinColorCatch® device to quantify skin pigmentation and erythema in predefined facial regions. The following parameters will be recorded at each time point: Melanin Index (MI), L* value (lightness), and Erythema Index (EI). Measurements will be obtained under standardized ambient lighting and positioning conditions at baseline, second, third, and fourth follow-up visits.
Measured: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) Measurement Using Delfin Vapometer
Skin barrier function will be assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) using the Delfin Vapometer® device. Measurements will be taken at standardized facial sites under controlled environmental conditions (temperature and humidity) following device guidelines. TEWL values will be recorded at baseline and at the second, third, and fourth follow-up visits to evaluate changes in skin barrier integrity over the treatment course.
Measured: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Standardized VISIA Photographic Documentation
Standardized facial photographs will be captured using the VISIA Complexion Analysis System (Canfield Scientific, USA) at each time point to document changes in skin appearance. The system will provide consistent image capture under controlled lighting and positioning conditions. VISIA documentation will support visual assessment of treatment-related changes in texture, pores, pigmentation, and overall skin condition. Images will be used for qualitative reference and supplemental analysis by blinded evaluators.
Measured: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Incidence of Adverse Events
Adverse events (AEs) including erythema, edema, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation, burning sensation, pain, and scarring will be recorded following each treatment session and at each follow-up visit.
Measured: before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Aug 2025
- Study start26 Sep 2021
- Primary completion8 Jan 2023
- Study completion19 Jun 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Skin AgingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Huashan HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a 1064-nm fractional picosecond laser treatment or an intense pulsed light (IPL) treatment. Each group received three treatment sessions at 4-6 week intervals.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 38 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Huashan Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Yanjun Dan, Huashan Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07122310
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- KY2022-824
- Status last verified
- Aug 2025
- First submitted
- 5 Aug 2025
- Last updated
- 14 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared because this single-center study does not have a formal data sharing infrastructure, and participants did not provide consent for public data sharing. Aggregated results may be reported in publications or upon reasonable request.
Publications
Zhang J, Wu C, Liu Y, Yan F, Chen Q, Zhu Y, Xiang LF, Ren J. Comparative Study of a 1064 nm Fractional Picosecond Laser Versus Intense Pulsed Light in Facial Rejuvenation: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Lasers Surg Med. 2026 Mar;58(3):184-193. doi: 10.1002/lsm.70094. Epub 2026 Jan 4.
PubMed 41485124
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of a 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser Versus Intense Pulsed Light in Facial Rejuvenation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07122310
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- KY2022-824
- Conditions
- Skin Aging, Skin Rejuvenation, Photoaging
- Keywords
- Skin Rejuvenation, Picosecond laser, Intense pulsed light
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 38 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Huashan HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 26 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 8 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 19 Jun 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted at Huashan Hospital, Fudan University. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of two non-invasive treatment options-1064-nm fractional picosecond laser and intense pulsed light (IPL)-for facial rejuvenation. A total of 38 participants seeking cosmetic improvement were randomly assigned to receive three sessions of either picosecond laser or IPL treatment at 4-6 week intervals.
Each participant was monitored throughout the treatment period and at one month after the final session. The study assessed improvements in skin texture, pigmentation, and wrinkles, as well as treatment-related side effects. All participants provided informed consent and received standardized post-treatment care instructions, including moisturization and sun protection. The results of this study may help guide non-surgical treatment options for skin aging.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a 1064-nm fractional picosecond laser treatment or an intense pulsed light (IPL) treatment. Each group received three treatment sessions at 4-6 week intervals.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Picosecond Laser Group | Experimental | Device: 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay) |
| Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) Group | Experimental | Device: Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 30 to 60 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- (1)Individuals aged 30-60 years with a GSP score of 1-4;(2)Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-IV;(3)Written informed consent obtained.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- (1)Pregnant or lactating women;(2)Patients with severe systemic diseases;(3)Individuals with coagulation dysfunction;(4)Patients with mental disorders;(5)Photosensitive individuals;(6)Individuals with infections at the treatment site;(7)Individuals who have used photosensitive drugs within 4 weeks;(8)Individuals who have received other cosmetic treatments such as laser, intense pulsed light (IPL), radiofrequency, chemical peels (e.g., glycolic acid), fillers, etc., within 6 months;(9)Individuals with a personal or family history of keloids;(10)Individuals with a personal or family history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma or melanoma;(11)Individuals with a personal or family history of vitiligo;(12)Individuals with a history of intense sun exposure or ultraviolet (UV) radiation within 1 month.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay)Intervention Name: 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay) Participants in this group received full-face treatments using a PicoWay® laser system (Candela, Wayland, MA, USA) equipped with a 1064-nm RESOLVE fractional handpiece. Treatment parameters included a 6 mm spot size, 6 Hz repetition rate, 450 ps pulse duration, and energy settings ranging from 1.5 to 2.3 mJ per microbeam. Each session consisted of 2-3 passes (approximately 2000-4000 pulses), adjusted based on individual response. Three sessions were delivered at 4-6-week intervals. Cold compresses were applied for 20 minutes immediately post-treatment. | Device | Picosecond Laser Group |
| Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System)Intervention Name: Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System) Intervention Description: Participants in this group underwent full-face treatments using an M22® IPL system (Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel) with a 560 nm cutoff filter. Treatment parameters included a pulse duration of 3.5-4 ms, pulse delay of 25-30 ms, and fluence of 12-18 J/cm², adjusted based on individual response. Each treatment involved approximately 40-60 pulses. Three sessions were performed at 4-6-week intervals. A layer of medical ultrasound gel was applied before treatment and maintained for 15-20 minutes post-treatment. | Device | Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) Group |
Primary outcome
Blinded GSP (Global Score for Photoaging) assessment by two dermatologists
Time frame: 1 month after third treatment (approximately 12-16 weeks after baseline)
Global skin photoaging score assessed by blinded dermatologists using the Global Skin Photoaging (GSP) Scale. Scale range: 0-4, where higher scores indicate more severe photoaging.
7 secondary outcomes
Blinded GSP scoring
Time frame: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (approximately 4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (approximately 8-12 weeks after baseline)
Regional Fine Line and Dyschromia Grading by Dermatologists
Time frame: before second treatment (approximately 4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (approximately 8-12 weeks after baseline), and 1 month after third treatment (approximately 12-16 weeks after baseline)
Quantitative Assessment of Skin Roughness Using C-Cube Imaging System
Time frame: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Quantitative Skin Pigmentation and Erythema Assessment Using SkinColorCatch
Time frame: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) Measurement Using Delfin Vapometer
Time frame: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Standardized VISIA Photographic Documentation
Time frame: baseline (before first treatment), before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Incidence of Adverse Events
Time frame: before second treatment (~4-6 weeks after baseline), before third treatment (~8-12 weeks), and 1 month after third treatment (~12-16 weeks)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Aug 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41485124Zhang J, Wu C, Liu Y, Yan F, Chen Q, Zhu Y, Xiang LF, Ren J. Comparative Study of a 1064 nm Fractional Picosecond Laser Versus Intense Pulsed Light in Facial Rejuvenation: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Lasers Surg Med. 2026 Mar;58(3):184-193. doi: 10.1002/lsm.70094. Epub 2026 Jan 4.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared because this single-center study does not have a formal data sharing infrastructure, and participants did not provide consent for public data sharing. Aggregated results may be reported in publications or upon reasonable request.
Related trials for Skin Aging
RecruitingObservational study
Improved Facial Skin Quality and Quality of Life After VYC-12L Treatment in Breast Cancer Survivors
Quality of Life, Breast Neoplasms
Active, not recruiting
Integrated Actionable Aging Assessment for Cancer Patients Pilot
Breast Cancer, Hodgkin Lymphoma
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Clinical Research on Deep-Plane Rejuran S Injection for Improvement in the Apperance of Periorbital Hollowing Using a Cannula Technique
Periorbital Hollowing, Skin Aging
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Clinical Evaluation of Dual-Plane Technique PN-Based Treatment for Horizontal Neck Lines Using DNA Fragment Opmizing Technology Polynucleotide (DOT PN)
Skin Aging, Horizontal Neck Lines
Recruiting
Ultraformer MPT Combined With Fractional CO2 Versus Fractional CO2 Alone for Facial Rejuvenation
Skin Aging
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing 1064-nm Fractional Picosecond Laser (PicoWay) and Intense Pulsed Light Therapy (M22 IPL System) in people with Skin Aging and Skin Rejuvenation, run by Huashan Hospital at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Aug 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Blinded GSP (Global Score for Photoaging) assessment by two dermatologists (time frame: 1 month after third treatment (approximately 12-16 weeks after baseline)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07122310, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Aug 2025.