On 6/13/2012 at 11:08 AM, collegeboy84 said:On 6/13/2012 at 9:28 AM, TokyoGirl said:While the technology is slightly different, Ultrapulse is fractional Co2:
[Edited link out[
It's probably safer on eyelids than Re:pair. Deep FX or Re:pair is probably deep enough for your scars. Patience is the key here. You need to give collagen time to rebuild from that depth.
I am wondering if there is another hand piece that makes the Ultrapulse Fully Ablative, not fractional. I wonder this for a few reasons. My doctor said the treatment on the eyes with the Ultrapulse is not fractionated and removes 100% of the skin. She also mentioned that this type of laser was used before fraxel was in existence. Which makes sense with how my skin reacted, my skin literally peeled off in huge layers where they did the Ultrapulse. You can actually see in 2 of the photos where my face is red, but under the eyes the skin had peeled off. I don't mean it just flaked, I mean it literally peeled off in layers and you could immediately see the difference as any scars in that depth were completely removed.
Here I read this quote from one of the doctors at realself.com
"Ultrapulse CO2 laser resurfacing is called flat beam resurfacing which means that the entire skin surface is vaporized. Fractional laser resurfacing treats only small areas of the skin leaving some skin intact which allows quicker healing. Fractional CO2 lasers are the ActiveFX, the DeepFX, and the Fraxel Repair. "
http://www.realself....or-pixel-lasers
Maybe it was Ultrapulsed CO2 not Ultra Pulse. I don't know. This Pubmed article is referring to the Ultrapulsed, published in 1997, long before fractionated technology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9333279
So in short, I guess I better ask my doctor to clarify. [Edited image out]
I would ask your doctor to clarify. It probably wasn't Lumenis UltraPulse (Active FX, Deep FX, SCAAR FX). I mentioned it being possibly safer because I was just reading a post about problems with Fraxel on eyelids, but it doesn't really make sense for a clinic to use two different Fractional lasers to treat a patient at once.
On 6/13/2012 at 11:18 AM, sanjoseskin said:On 6/13/2012 at 8:20 AM, collegeboy84 said:Either way I will probably have the fully ablative CO2 Ultrapulse done on my scars as I believe that is more effective then this fractionated approach. That is unless I see significant results in 6 months.
Umm, I think you better think twice about getting fully ablative CO2 ultrapulse. YOU WILL suffer permanent hypopigmentation, this is why fully ablative is no longer used and has been replaced by fractional. Fractional virtually diminished the risk of hypopigmentation.
Maybe you want to walk around with a tan body and pale white Michael Jackson face?
Why do you think he "WILL" suffer permanent hypopigmentation? How can you be so confident? Fully ablative is still used by some doctors on realself.
http://www.realself.com/question/risk-ablative-co2-laser-resurfacing
there is the MAX FX, which is fully ablative/non fractional. I think you should wait for the SCAAR FX, i herd that fully Ablative can cause other issues.
The thing about MAX FX is that it does not penetrate to the bottom of the ice pick scar. That is why I dont think it will be as successfull as the SCAAR FX for acne scaring.
Max FX is fractional. Realself lumps it together with Active FX.
http://www.realself.com/Active-FX/reviews
"ActiveFX, also called MaxFX, is fractional laser technology used an anti-aging treatment."
Ahhh, Coherent Ultrapulse is fully ablative.
MAX FX is to Active FX as
SCAAR FX is to DEEP FX
Active Fx can turn into Max FX where it is completely ablative just like the Deep FX can turn into the SCAAR FX where it penetrates much deeper. Also the Max FX has a downtown of about 14 days. so good luck with 2 weeks of isolation collegeboy.
[Edited link out]
[Edited link out]
On 6/13/2012 at 1:16 PM, LZOMG said:MAX FX is to Active FX as
SCAAR FX is to DEEP FX
Active Fx can turn into Max FX where it is completely ablative just like the Deep FX can turn into the SCAAR FX where it penetrates much deeper.
[Edited link out]
[Edited link out]
Yeah, I've seen those links in the past. They're the only two places I found this information located about Max FX. I did research this before doing Deep FX, and was confused by Max FX. I'm pretty sure it's fractional and just a different term used for higher settings.
Also, I think Max FX is often confused with an older type of ablative laser. It's all confusing. In other words, it's not really part of Lumenis Ultrapulse today.
At this link, doctor at the bottom says Max FX is fractional, while the first says it's a Co2 laser by Lumenis:
http://www.realself.com/question/Max-fx-Asian-skin-safety
Obviously, I am still confused. Never found a dermatologist/plastic surgeon in LA who offered Max FX anyway.
On 6/13/2012 at 12:45 PM, TokyoGirl said:On 6/13/2012 at 11:08 AM, collegeboy84 said:On 6/13/2012 at 9:28 AM, TokyoGirl said:While the technology is slightly different, Ultrapulse is fractional Co2:
http://www.aesthetic....com/ultrapulse
It's probably safer on eyelids than Re:pair. Deep FX or Re:pair is probably deep enough for your scars. Patience is the key here. You need to give collagen time to rebuild from that depth.
I am wondering if there is another hand piece that makes the Ultrapulse Fully Ablative, not fractional. I wonder this for a few reasons. My doctor said the treatment on the eyes with the Ultrapulse is not fractionated and removes 100% of the skin. She also mentioned that this type of laser was used before fraxel was in existence. Which makes sense with how my skin reacted, my skin literally peeled off in huge layers where they did the Ultrapulse. You can actually see in 2 of the photos where my face is red, but under the eyes the skin had peeled off. I don't mean it just flaked, I mean it literally peeled off in layers and you could immediately see the difference as any scars in that depth were completely removed.
Here I read this quote from one of the doctors at realself.com
"Ultrapulse CO2 laser resurfacing is called flat beam resurfacing which means that the entire skin surface is vaporized. Fractional laser resurfacing treats only small areas of the skin leaving some skin intact which allows quicker healing. Fractional CO2 lasers are the ActiveFX, the DeepFX, and the Fraxel Repair. "
http://www.realself....or-pixel-lasers
Maybe it was Ultrapulsed CO2 not Ultra Pulse. I don't know. This Pubmed article is referring to the Ultrapulsed, published in 1997, long before fractionated technology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9333279
So in short, I guess I better ask my doctor to clarify. [Edited image out]
I would ask your doctor to clarify. It probably wasn't Lumenis UltraPulse (Active FX, Deep FX, SCAAR FX). I mentioned it being possibly safer because I was just reading a post about problems with Fraxel on eyelids, but it doesn't really make sense for a clinic to use two different Fractional lasers to treat a patient at once.
On 6/13/2012 at 11:18 AM, sanjoseskin said:On 6/13/2012 at 8:20 AM, collegeboy84 said:Either way I will probably have the fully ablative CO2 Ultrapulse done on my scars as I believe that is more effective then this fractionated approach. That is unless I see significant results in 6 months.
Umm, I think you better think twice about getting fully ablative CO2 ultrapulse. YOU WILL suffer permanent hypopigmentation, this is why fully ablative is no longer used and has been replaced by fractional. Fractional virtually diminished the risk of hypopigmentation.
Maybe you want to walk around with a tan body and pale white Michael Jackson face?
Why do you think he "WILL" suffer permanent hypopigmentation? How can you be so confident? Fully ablative is still used by some doctors on realself.
Fully ablative CO2 resurfacing has a very high incidence of permanent and total hypopigmentation that shows up 18 months to 2 years post procedure. The only people who should even consider full ablative CO2 are Fitzpatrick type 1, basically people that already have almost no pigment to their skin. Even these people are at risk of hypopigmentation. If you or collegeboy84 don't want to believe that and risk permanent and total pigment loss, then by all means go ahead.
To clear up the laser confusion.
ActiveFX has a spot size of 1.3mm, it is a superficial treatment and is fractional.
DeepFx has a spot size of .12mm and goes deeper.
TotalFX is DeepFX followed by ActiveFX
ScaarFX also has a spot size of .12mm but goes extremely deep, up to 4mm.
MaxFX is a dense application, meaning the spots are so close that you achieve full ablation as opposed to fractional.
If you or collegeboy84 don't want to believe that and risk permanent and total pigment loss, then by all means go ahead.
Haha. There's no way I would consider fully ablative Co2. I've just read it's safer today and still more effective on acne scars. Collegeboy84 has already done it. I would hate to think such a high risk exists, and his clinic recommended regular, full ablation for under his eyes. Honestly, I can't even tell he has wrinkles in the first place.
MaxFX is a dense application, meaning the spots are so close that you achieve full ablation as opposed to fractional.
I understand now. In that case, is it still equivalent to traditional, fully ablative Co2 laser? Does it use the same device & depth as Active FX?
Any idea why Lumenis doesn't list it with Active/Deep/Total/Scaar FX? I'm just curious.
If you or collegeboy84 don't want to believe that and risk permanent and total pigment loss, then by all means go ahead.
Haha. There's no way I would consider fully ablative Co2. I've just read it's safer today and still more effective on acne scars. Collegeboy84 has already done it. I would hate to think such a high risk exists, and his clinic recommended regular, full ablation for under his eyes. Honestly, I can't even tell he has wrinkles in the first place.
MaxFX is a dense application, meaning the spots are so close that you achieve full ablation as opposed to fractional.
I understand now. In that case, is it still equivalent to traditional, fully ablative Co2 laser? Does it use the same device & depth as Active FX?
Any idea why Lumenis doesn't list it with Active/Deep/Total/Scaar FX? I'm just curious.
I may be wrong, but I think the reason you don't see it is because it may be outdated marketing terminology. I think they just don't use the term MaxFx anymore. Probably just a marketing decision.
You can still do full ablation with the UltraPulse, I think the setting is called a "TrueSpot" 2.0mm spot size setting.
Anyway you don't even want that, your focus should be on safer and more effective fractional. Such as the new deeper ScaarFX mode.
I am not sure how else to respond to the hypo-pigmentation statement posted by Sanjoseskin other then to say, I know there is a big risk of permanent hyper and hypo-pigmentation, along with scarring, etc. I knew this before I had the treatment, not only from my own research, but because the doctor told me. At this point, making me regret my 3000 dollars spent on giving myself permanent hypo-pigmentation serves no purpose as the treatment was done 19 days ago.
However, I personally believe I will have no such issue. My doctor showed me 100s of before and after photos of her previous patients. She specifically showed me a few that had skin that looked much like my own with remarkable results, over the course of 2-3 treatments. When I say skin that looked much like my own, I don't just mean skin pigmentation, I mean the scars, size of the pores, the over-all texture, it looked like my identical twin. By the way, the guy whos skin looked identical to mine had 2 treatments done with the fully ablative CO2.
Trust me, I appreciate the " your scars don't look too bad" or the " I'd die to have the minimal scarring that'd you have" statements, but as I have said before, my skin looks much worse under the right lighting, mainly, outdoors when the sun is shadowing the dents on my face. Anybody who has real acne scarring can appreciate that. I am not some perfectionist bitching about some non-existent, nobody-can-see-but-me scars. I didn't drop 3000 dollars of my hard earned cash for nothing (unless I see no improvement). Mommy didn't pay for this treatment. Yes, I probably should have taken some before pictures of my face outdoors but I don't think I will be too thrilled showing the world my face in my most hideous form. Keep in mind, I am taking these low-quality photos from an out-of-date smartphone.
So statements like...
" YOU WILL suffer permanent hypopigmentation"
-and-
"Maybe you want to walk around with a tan body and pale white Michael Jackson face? "
... are greatly unappreciated.
I guess what I am trying to say is, " I trust my doctor more then you."
Keep everyone posted who can't see into the future.
On 6/14/2012 at 12:57 PM, *Can*I*Live* said:On 6/13/2012 at 11:08 AM, collegeboy84 said:[Edited image out]
Any new fotos/updates?
I think I will post a photo in 10 days, which is the 30-day mark post treatment. I have taken a few photos but seemed pointless posting as my skin looks the same except with an added sun-burnt red pigmentation. I think I notice some improvement in depth of a few boxcar scars but the improvement doesn't really appear to show up on paper.
@collegeboy,
I respect your opinion for wanting to get full ablative face. Since you have to wait like 6 months I believe until you can get another laser treatment, im not trying to tell you to not get it, but I encourage you to wait until more details on the SCAAR FX to come out. More details should definatly be out by December and then you should weigh your options.
And dont be so harsh on SanJose he is only worried about the "what ifs" but the truth is every thing in life has a "what if"
On 6/14/2012 at 1:20 PM, collegeboy84 said:I am not sure how else to respond to the hypo-pigmentation statement posted by Sanjoseskin other then to say, I know there is a big risk of permanent hyper and hypo-pigmentation, along with scarring, etc. I knew this before I had the treatment, not only from my own research, but because the doctor told me. At this point, making me regret my 3000 dollars spent on giving myself permanent hypo-pigmentation serves no purpose as the treatment was done 19 days ago.
However, I personally believe I will have no such issue. My doctor showed me 100s of before and after photos of her previous patients. She specifically showed me a few that had skin that looked much like my own with remarkable results, over the course of 2-3 treatments. When I say skin that looked much like my own, I don't just mean skin pigmentation, I mean the scars, size of the pores, the over-all texture, it looked like my identical twin. By the way, the guy whos skin looked identical to mine had 2 treatments done with the fully ablative CO2.
Trust me, I appreciate the " your scars don't look too bad" or the " I'd die to have the minimal scarring that'd you have" statements, but as I have said before, my skin looks much worse under the right lighting, mainly, outdoors when the sun is shadowing the dents on my face. Anybody who has real acne scarring can appreciate that. I am not some perfectionist bitching about some non-existent, nobody-can-see-but-me scars. I didn't drop 3000 dollars of my hard earned cash for nothing (unless I see no improvement). Mommy didn't pay for this treatment. Yes, I probably should have taken some before pictures of my face outdoors but I don't think I will be too thrilled showing the world my face in my most hideous form. Keep in mind, I am taking these low-quality photos from an out-of-date smartphone.
So statements like...
" YOU WILL suffer permanent hypopigmentation"
-and-
"Maybe you want to walk around with a tan body and pale white Michael Jackson face? "
... are greatly unappreciated.
I guess what I am trying to say is, " I trust my doctor more then you."
Keep everyone posted who can't see into the future.
On 6/14/2012 at 12:57 PM, *Can*I*Live* said:On 6/13/2012 at 11:08 AM, collegeboy84 said:[Edited image out]
Any new fotos/updates?
I think I will post a photo in 10 days, which is the 30-day mark post treatment. I have taken a few photos but seemed pointless posting as my skin looks the same except with an added sun-burnt red pigmentation. I think I notice some improvement in depth of a few boxcar scars but the improvement doesn't really appear to show up on paper.
About the lighting outside which makes even the slightest scars look so bad, I have to agree. I just hate how the shadows make the texture look so bad despite the shallow depth of the scars.
About the before and after photos you speak of, are the improvements impressive or just 20 - 30% improvement? Or was it almost flawless? I mean if your scars were similar to the ones in the photos, then I would imagine that such an aggressive treatment could correct them 100% I mean, DGRAZ had great results and his scarring was far worse. I just don't understand why even the shallowest scars don't seem to completely go away even with laser treatments. Or am I wrong? I just feel that since your scars are quite shallow, after 1 or two treatments, hopefully things will improve, even in the harshest lighting.
I can understand why some people would discourage you in getting treatments, but honestly I'm actually glad someone has the guts to do something instead of just lying back and 'accepting' their scars. I can assure you that no one has, or will ever, accept their scars. It's just not how we are supposed to look. And it really peeves me off that after battling bad skin for so many years, I've ended up scarred as well. I just want to do something...terrible sometimes.
Looking forward to seeing those pictures.
On 6/14/2012 at 1:34 PM, LZOMG said:@collegeboy,
I respect your opinion for wanting to get full ablative face. Since you have to wait like 6 months I believe until you can get another laser treatment, im not trying to tell you to not get it, but I encourage you to wait until more details on the SCAAR FX to come out. More details should definatly be out by December and then you should weigh your options.
And dont be so harsh on SanJose he is only worried about the "what ifs" but the truth is every thing in life has a "what if"
In your opinion, do you think that Deep FX is far superior to Active FX, because of the spot size. Since, the smaller the spot size, the less chance of textural damage (orange peel texture). Is this true? As for SCAAR FX, I hope it works on ice pick scars. But then the problem of hyper-pigmentation and hypo-pigmentation does present itself in Asian skin / Ethnic skin.
Actually the Active FX has a far larger spot size but because the Active FX does not penetrate the Dermis where deep scarring occurs its not that effective vs scarring. The Deep FX penetrates like 4 times deeper than the Active FX. Since the Deep FX can penetrate into the dermis it can help scar tissue. The SCAAR FX can penetrate 4 times deeper than the Deep FX where it goes all the way down the subcutatnious layer (the fatty layer in your skin) so it penetrates deeper than even the deepest ice pick scars.
Ice pick scars are the hardest for other people to notice but they are also the hardest to treat.
I am wondering which one you did to focus on the ice picks scars?
I don't want fix the texture since is okay now, but i really want to focus on the ice picks to try shallow them a bit more, which one you did focusing on that?
Fraxel:repair or Ultrapulse Co2?
thanks a lot
I am wondering which one you did to focus on the ice picks scars?
Fraxel:repair or Ultrapulse Co2?
Ultrapulse Deep FX and Fraxel Repair are both essentailly the same laser with different branding.
The Fraxel is usually much more expansive though. For ice pick though you could try these and mean while wait for the new details of the SCAAR FX to come out.
On 6/15/2012 at 12:39 AM, guicbg said:Gotcha, thanks a lot for the tips!
Just wondering if this is the one we are talking about?
Lumenis UltraPulse Fractional CO2
yes, but wow 200$ sounds like one heck of a deal.
Make sure its Deep FX and not Active FX for acne scarring. Also you will most likely need multiple treatments.
On 6/14/2012 at 1:20 PM, collegeboy84 said:I am not sure how else to respond to the hypo-pigmentation statement posted by Sanjoseskin other then to say, I know there is a big risk of permanent hyper and hypo-pigmentation, along with scarring, etc. I knew this before I had the treatment, not only from my own research, but because the doctor told me. At this point, making me regret my 3000 dollars spent on giving myself permanent hypo-pigmentation serves no purpose as the treatment was done 19 days ago.
However, I personally believe I will have no such issue. My doctor showed me 100s of before and after photos of her previous patients. She specifically showed me a few that had skin that looked much like my own with remarkable results, over the course of 2-3 treatments. When I say skin that looked much like my own, I don't just mean skin pigmentation, I mean the scars, size of the pores, the over-all texture, it looked like my identical twin. By the way, the guy whos skin looked identical to mine had 2 treatments done with the fully ablative CO2.
Trust me, I appreciate the " your scars don't look too bad" or the " I'd die to have the minimal scarring that'd you have" statements, but as I have said before, my skin looks much worse under the right lighting, mainly, outdoors when the sun is shadowing the dents on my face. Anybody who has real acne scarring can appreciate that. I am not some perfectionist bitching about some non-existent, nobody-can-see-but-me scars. I didn't drop 3000 dollars of my hard earned cash for nothing (unless I see no improvement). Mommy didn't pay for this treatment. Yes, I probably should have taken some before pictures of my face outdoors but I don't think I will be too thrilled showing the world my face in my most hideous form. Keep in mind, I am taking these low-quality photos from an out-of-date smartphone.
So statements like...
" YOU WILL suffer permanent hypopigmentation"
-and-
"Maybe you want to walk around with a tan body and pale white Michael Jackson face? "
... are greatly unappreciated.
I guess what I am trying to say is, " I trust my doctor more then you."
Keep everyone posted who can't see into the future.
[Edited image out]
First of all, my respond was to a statement you made on June 12 (only 2 days ago):
"Either way I will probably have the fully ablative CO2 Ultrapulse done on my scars as I believe that is more effective then this fractionated approach. That is unless I see significant results in 6 months."
That was only 2 days ago, and according to that statement I was under the impression you had NOT yet done full face full ablative CO2. If you are now now referring to under your eyes, I did not know you had full ablative done under your eyes either before I made the comment about hypopigmentation and Michael Jackson. So relax.
I was simply trying to warn you of the dangers of full face full ablative CO2.
Hypogpigmentation from full ablative CO2 is not something I conjured up in my head, it is a well documented fact. Permanent hypopigmentation is THE REASON why fractional CO2 was invented. Applying the CO2 fractionally and leaving healthy tissue between spots bypasses this horrible side effect.
I'm usually not rude on here, but I have to say I think it's time you get a new doctor, even though you trust your doctor more than me. I question any doctor that would perform full CO2 resurfacing under the eyes of someone so young. I would only imagine someone 60 yrs old with severe eye wrinkles would get that done, not someone who looks like a teenager.
Anyway, good luck in everything, I hope you are satisfied with the final results.
One last note for everyone:
Full ablative CO2 is less effective than fractional CO2 when treating acne scars. Full ablative CO2 does not go deep, in the context of acne scars, it is a superficial treatment. Whereas fractional is deeper and more effective as it can reach the fibrous roots of the acne scars.
Guys I have some horrible news. I woke up this morning, looked in the mirror, and to my dismay, I was looking at the face that closely resembled that of Michael Jackson. (Hypopigmentation)
Hehehe! [Edited image out]Sorry, bad inside joke. Especially if it comes true.
On a more serious note, I wanted to reiterate a few things.
- Had the repair done on forehead/cheeks. Had "Ultrapulse" done under the eyes. Most Ultrapulse treatments are fractional, but as Sanjoseskin has stated, there is a treatment called MaxFX which is practically a full ablation. Which is most likely what I had, as the skin under my eyes was vaporized (see pictures from day 3). Now if this is truly considered the old school CO2, or a safer version of it, I will never know.
-Alex to answer your question in truth... I really don't know. I guess I'd say 20% on the scars themselves, 2 of the boxcar scars seem have had a more significant improvement of 50% in depth. I think I notice the most improvement in my pores, orange peel texture, and wrinkles. All of which do not show up on my personal photos I posted. But the scars are still there and I will need another treatment 6 months from now no doubt. With all that being said, it has only been 20 days and most of the laser vets are telling me to be more patient, so I will hold my judgement for a later date.
P.S.- I feel like I notice more improvement day to day now, then I did the 1st week. I am not sure how common this is. But as Tokyogirl had stated at one point, repair is a very deep treatment which takes time for the healing to appear on the superficial layers.
-Yes, I will post photos when it makes sense too. As for now, I don't think there is any noticeable results you can see from my photos. Not to mention my face is still streaky with a variation of pink tones which actually makes my face look worse.
-I understand that Full CO2 does not penetrate nearly as deep as repair. I think my biggest issue with my skin is the textural irregularities, the little bumps and orange peel look. In the sun, it makes my skin look very bad, especially when my face is oily or shiny (from sunscreen). I believe this poor texture is what bothers me more then the scars themselves, it exacerbates the scarring, if this makes sense to anyone. This is why I was thinking of doing the Full CO2, "Ultrapulse-MaxFX" on just the poor textured area, on the cheek bone, not the whole face. If I had smooth skin around the scarring I had, I think I could be happy with my skin. I think these textural, orange-peel issues is what remains hidden in the photos and is why so many think my skin is not as bad as it really is. Which brings me to my next point.
-Where the doctor vaporized my skin off around the eyes with the "Ultra Pulse" or MaxFX, whatever it is called, is now incredibly smooth. No orange peel texture. I also had a bad wrinkle in that area that was shaped funny and actually resembled a scar (a "real" scar, not an acne scar) . This is another abnormality that does not show up in the photos. As an ex smoker of 10 years (quit 2 years ago) and a carpenter that worked in the sun for 10 years every day without sunscreen (another bad habit I stopped), trust me, there is damage. Next time around I will take better photos so people aren't second guessing my complexion/scarring issues.
-Sanjoseskin, I see your point and I very well may seek another doctor when the time comes.. Though I will say, Suzanne Kilmer is no slouch of a doctor. She is rated by News Week and Self Magazine as one of Americans top 10 laser surgeons. She has also made appearances on the Oprah show and the View, so I would hope she is not ripping me for my money. But the jury is still out as I hope to see better results before the 6 month mark.
-Oh and one more thing Alex. You asked why some people see great results and others like myself don't see great results even though I have "minimal" scarring. I think it has a lot to do with complexion. A doctor will probably go very aggressive on a skin type 1 patient, as for me, the doctor was rather mild at 50 Joules. She said it was better to be safe the 1st time around to see how my skin reacts. She said mixed ethnicity patients from her experiences have the worst cases of pigmentation. Her absolute worst, a half black, half irish man that appeared to have type 1 skin. My skin is very weird, I am actually naturally very pale, almost pink, I do get sunburnt, but my skin can also tan very dark, which makes sense considering I work in the sun 247. But it has been nearly 3 weeks and the doctor says I show no signs of hyperpigmentation. In fact, my skin appears to get a little less pink every day. So hopefully the next treatment can be a bit more aggressive, especially if I opt for another repair. And honestly? The redness does not bother me as I know it will go away some day, hopefully.... -keep fingers crossed-
Just a random thought...
As I mentioned before, when I stretch the skin, my scars (including the ice-picks) flatten and become nearly even with the rest of my skin. So a 1 mm deep icepick scar would be something more along the lines of 0.25 MM deep. By doing the Fraxel:Repair with the skin stretched wouldn't it logically penetrate deeper? Though the distance between each "pixel" or MTZ (micro-thermal zone) would be more spaced out. Also the repair laser is actually done with a rolling-type device that would technically flatten out the skin or "stretch" it anyways, unlike other lasers like Pixel or DeepFX where the hand held device never actually touches the patients skin. Maybe this is another reason why repair in general gets better results?
Deep FX is shown here at the begining (Active FX follows Deep FX):
I know my doctor also pulled the skin on my cheek slightly as the laser's placeholder was focused over each scar. I've actually read Deep FX produces better results on deep scars because of the method of delivery.
I HATE the sound of the DeepFX laser... brings back bad memories of the one they used on my eyes.
Interesting how he slightly pulls back the skin. How does Fraxel repair compare with DeepFX? I find it interesting that the DeepFX is much cheaper even though it seems to take much longer to cover a large area.
Looking at the receipt one of the technicians gave me I notice there is a list of resurfacing devices they have available at my doctor's office.
- Fraxel Re-pair
- Lumenis Deep Fx
- Sciton Pro-fractional
- Pearl Fractional
- UltraPulse CO2 Laser
- Along with about 20 others but they appear to be non-ablative.
I guess on my next visit I should inquire about my other options. I wonder if there is really even a difference aside from Sciton being a Erbium laser.
Oh I also found this in regards to the difference between MaxFX(what was used on my eyes) and the old CO2 lasers.
- ActiveFx: Density 1: 75%; Density 2: 80%; Density 3: 85%; Density 4: 95%; Density 5: 100%
- MaxFx is ActiveFx at Density 5: 100%.
- The MaxFx now is somewhat different than CO2 treatments done in the 1990s because only one pass is done. In the 1990s 3 passes were done wiping off the epidermis in between passes.
- Eyes: Use ActiveFx. Dont do DeepFx around eyes (skin too thin?)
- Eyes: ActiveFx: 90-100 mj, density 2-3. Downtime: 7-8 days of downtime (what TYPE of downtime?)
- Eyes: Upper Lid: ActiveFx: 60-70 mj, density 1
- ActiveFx ablates 1.3 mm columns and can go 300 microns or 0.3 mm deep
- DeepFx ablates 0.12 mm columns and can go 2000 microns or 2.0 mm deep
- 1000 microns = 1.0 mm
[*]125 mj of energy with ActiveFx penetrates 300 microns deep
[*]30 mj of energy with DeepFx penetrates 1.9 mm deep (1900 microns)
[*]Most photoaging occurs in the papillary dermis (the worse solar elastosis in elderly farmers is at a depth of 800 microns), so there is no need to go deeper. Therefore our panel recommended a max DeepFx strength of 20 mj (1 mm deep?). Going deeper gets you more tightening because of more tissue ablation and volume loss.
[*]Using 30 mj of energy and going to 2.0 mm deep has caused scarring around the eyes in one providers experience. They do not recommend going this deep.
[*]Eyes: Might consider using DeepFx for low lids: 5-10 mj with density 2? This was the experts thinking outloud. They are not recommending this!
[*]Eyes: Treat to the lid margins with ActiveFx: Density 4-5, one pass (for greater tightening and because this is where much of the problem lines reside?) This seems strong. Listen to Webinar for yourself before doing this!