Volume 30, Issue 2 pp. 160-169
Article

Vascular response to laser photothermolysis as a function of pulse duration, vessel type, and diameter: Implications for port wine stain laser therapy

Sol Kimel PhD

Sol Kimel PhD

Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, California 92612

Department of Chemistry, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel

Search for more papers by this author
Lars O. Svaasand PhD

Lars O. Svaasand PhD

Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, California 92612

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim N-7033, Norway

Search for more papers by this author
Danielle Cao BSc

Danielle Cao BSc

Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, California 92612

Search for more papers by this author
Marie J. Hammer-Wilson MSc

Marie J. Hammer-Wilson MSc

Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, California 92612

Search for more papers by this author
J. Stuart Nelson MD, PhD

Corresponding Author

J. Stuart Nelson MD, PhD

Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, California 92612

Beckman Laser Institute, 1002 Health Sciences Road East, Irvine, California 92612-1475.Search for more papers by this author
First published: 08 February 2002
Citations: 74

Abstract

Background and Objective

Treatment of port wine stains (PWS) by photothermolysis can be improved by optimizing laser parameters on an individual patient basis. We have studied the critical role of pulse duration (tp) on the treatment efficacy.

Study Design/Materials and Methods

The V-beam laser (Candela) allowed changing tp over user-specified discrete values between 1.5 and 40 milliseconds by delivering a series of 100 microsecond spikes. For the 1.5 and 3 millisecond pulses, three spikes were observed at intervals tp/2 and for tp ≥ 6 milliseconds, four spikes separated by tp/3. The ScleroPlus laser (Candela) has a smooth output over its fixed 1.5 milliseconds duration. Blood vessels in the chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) were irradiated at fixed wavelength (595 nm), spot size (7 mm), radiant exposure (15 Jcm−2), and at variable tp. The CAM contains an extensive microvascular network ranging from capillaries with diameter D < 30 μm to blood vessels of D ≈ 120 μm. The CAM assay allows real-time video documentation, and observation of blood flow in pre-capillary arterioles (A) and post-capillary venules (V). Vessel injury was graded from recorded videotapes. Mathematical modeling was developed to interpret results of vessel injury when varying tp and D. A modified thermal relaxation time was introduced to calculate vessel wall temperature following laser exposure.

Results

Arterioles. For increasing tp, overall damage was found to decrease. For fixed tp, damage decreased with vessel size. Venules. For all D, damage was smaller than for corresponding arterioles. There was no dependence of damage on tp. For given tp, no variation of damage with D was observed. Photothermolysis due to spiked (V-beam) vs. smooth (Scleroplus) delivery of laser energy at fixed tp (1.5 milliseconds), showed similar vessel injuries for al values of D (P>0.05).

Conclusions

The difference between initial arteriole and venule damage could be explained by the threefold higher absorption coefficient at 595 nm in (oxygen-poor!) arterioles. In human patients, PWS consist of ectatic venules (characterized by higher absorption), so that these considerations favor the use of 595-nm irradiation for laser photothermolysis. For optimal treatment of PWS it is proposed that tp be between 0.1 and 1.5 milliseconds. This is based on a modified relaxation time τd′, defined as the time required for heat conduction into the full thickness of the vessel wall, which is assumed to have a thickness ΔD ≈ 0.1D. The corresponding τd′ will be a factor of about six smaller than given in the literature. For vessels with D between 30 and 300 μm, τd′ ranges from 0.1 to 1.5 milliseconds. Lasers Surg. Med. 30:160–169, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.