Acne.org Products
cbission did you have fraxel 1 or 2 and at what setting? thanks
To be honest I don't know. Kind of embarrasing, huh? I just trust that the doctor is doing what ever is best for me because she knows more than I do. I will try to find out next time I go in which is next week.
I am just about 2 weeks post my first fraxel and I think I have actaully seen improvement. After the first day it looked great, it was nice to walk around with no scars but about 4 days later when the swelling was down my scars were back. The wierd thing is now 2 weeks later they look better then they did 5 days after the treatment. My doctor did say I had the kind of scars that would respond well to Fraxel. I go back next week for my 2nd round. Good luck to everyone!!did you do full face fraxel? what was your after-care like? it did not irratate current scars?
I had full face, i used the cream the doctor prescribed - Biafane (spelling), lots of moisturizing with Cetiphil and sun block. It didn't irritate anything really.
I got sebaceous hyperplasia from Intense Pulsed Light (IPL). IPL is not a laser per say, since it is broad spectrum light. But it was so bad I had to go on Accutane to get rid of it.Nanty's experience has me really worried. How many people are getting hyperplasia/clogged pores from fraxel?? Seems like everyone . . .
Just FYI for you and everyone else, none of the spots she treated came off.
are the spots only on the cheeks where you had 40 MJ (quite high levels)?
i keep a journal of weird stuff people report from fraxel. another thing some people said they got were little brown spots kind of like freckles. anyone had these with the SR1500?
They Can Be Cured
I'd appreciate your advice. I have paid for 1 more, but my doc has not upgraded. I am waiting partly in hopes he will. Assuming he does not, I am thinking about going with 4 passes at 25 and 8 passes at 35 over scarred areas or wrinkles. Previously, I thought these levels unsafe with SR 750, but it seems as if others have been treated at 35 and even 40 with SR 750. Let me know.
Thanks
i don't think one treatment at that level is going to do more than make your last treatment uncomfortable (pain) with possible risk of adverse effects.
a whole treatment series at that level might make a difference but your only doing less than 15 percent with that high a setting for one tx.
you're retired so downtime isnt a problem i guess. although you might be tempted to go out in the sun not recognizing the higher level requires more downtime so be careful.
sorry dont want to lie. i'd stick with the level you've been at. maybe go up one or two levels. and go for the SR 1500 with roller tip in six months.
maybe ask the doc to save that treatment for when he upgrades . . .
i replied to this question in that other thread you asked it.
pretty awesome before & after pics here - you have to click on slide show http://ww2.ktvb.com/Global/category.asp?C=78880
Hello,
I havent been here in awhile.. it took me forever to read and catch up. I had my first fraxel about 4 weeks ago. I am having my second one on May 28. I decided to wait so long for the second one b/c I want the new machine (also, I am a teacher and I wanted to do it during my off time). I did have results after the first treatment. At first, I was really happy b/c the results looked amazing! But, like many others have reported, after the microswelling went down, some of the scars came back. But I still have to say that I have had good results and I am happy with the way its going. I am convinced that fraxel works... I am nervous about the second treatment b/c it is going to more aggressive. I hated sitting in that chair.. the pain wasnt unbearable but it was very uncomfortable. I had NO visible swelling whatesoever and was slightly pink for several days (but the pink looked more like a sun burn so it was okay with me). I bought a mineral powder to cover the pink during recovery and it worked great. To anyone who is considering fraxel, I would say it works. I personally have been pleased, even after having just one. I am ready for my next one!
-Jaime
Hello,I havent been here in awhile.. it took me forever to read and catch up. I had my first fraxel about 4 weeks ago. I am having my second one on May 28. I decided to wait so long for the second one b/c I want the new machine (also, I am a teacher and I wanted to do it during my off time). I did have results after the first treatment. At first, I was really happy b/c the results looked amazing! But, like many others have reported, after the microswelling went down, some of the scars came back. But I still have to say that I have had good results and I am happy with the way its going. I am convinced that fraxel works... I am nervous about the second treatment b/c it is going to more aggressive. I hated sitting in that chair.. the pain wasnt unbearable but it was very uncomfortable. I had NO visible swelling whatesoever and was slightly pink for several days (but the pink looked more like a sun burn so it was okay with me). I bought a mineral powder to cover the pink during recovery and it worked great. To anyone who is considering fraxel, I would say it works. I personally have been pleased, even after having just one. I am ready for my next one!
-Jaime
jaime,
just so you know, i had the same reaction to my first fraxel, but i am still beet-red 6 days after my second fraxel. i was swollen pretty badly for the first two days.
Ok. I think I'm gonna wait till the new Fraxel Re:pair comes out to have my surgery. It is suppose to be out this coming Fall. From what I've gathered, there are many docs that think that Erbium (fraxel re:store or fraxel 1 or 2) is inferior to Co2 based lasers. I was able to find the following study on the new Fraxel 3 laser that totally ablates (destroys) the dermal tissue with Co2. In the skin biospy, where the dermal tissue was destroyed, the entire zone was replaced with complete new collagen within three months.
Hello,I havent been here in awhile.. it took me forever to read and catch up. I had my first fraxel about 4 weeks ago. I am having my second one on May 28. I decided to wait so long for the second one b/c I want the new machine (also, I am a teacher and I wanted to do it during my off time). I did have results after the first treatment. At first, I was really happy b/c the results looked amazing! But, like many others have reported, after the microswelling went down, some of the scars came back. But I still have to say that I have had good results and I am happy with the way its going. I am convinced that fraxel works... I am nervous about the second treatment b/c it is going to more aggressive. I hated sitting in that chair.. the pain wasnt unbearable but it was very uncomfortable. I had NO visible swelling whatesoever and was slightly pink for several days (but the pink looked more like a sun burn so it was okay with me). I bought a mineral powder to cover the pink during recovery and it worked great. To anyone who is considering fraxel, I would say it works. I personally have been pleased, even after having just one. I am ready for my next one!
-Jaime
i am so happy for you! please keep up posted on your progress. who did your treatment? and ... did you really notice a positive difference after just the 1st treatment? what was the improvement like - less deep? less wide? please share with us!
Ok. I think I'm gonna wait till the new Fraxel Re:pair comes out to have my surgery. It is suppose to be out this coming Fall. From what I've gathered, there are many docs that think that Erbium (fraxel re:store or fraxel 1 or 2) is inferior to Co2 based lasers. I was able to find the following study on the new Fraxel 3 laser that totally ablates (destroys) the dermal tissue with Co2. In the skin biospy, where the dermal tissue was destroyed, the entire zone was replaced with complete new collagen within three months.
Thanks for the link, rpunkboy! I'd just like to comment on a couple of things about the study. (BTW this comment isn't really directed to you, I'm just quoting to show what I'm referring to.)
I've been researching Fraxel for my acne scars, and being both a cautious person and a poor one(!), I gotta have decent proof before I go for treatment. Sorry if I bring anyone down, but for the cost of treatment I want more reassurance it will work!
One thing I notice is that in this study, the new laser is used not for scarring but for skin tightening. So far, from posts I've read, it seems like people are getting better results with the Fraxel series for superficial scarring & wrinkling, melasma and rosacea than for deeper scarring, and this study doesn't suggest anything different for the new laser. (Yet.)
The study also makes no mention of whether the laser was used on anyone's FACE. The pictures are of someone's arm. I would be extremely cautious about making any judgment at all about its effectiveness (and possible side effects) until I saw the results of facial testing. (Nope, I won't be first in line for that either...)
I don't see a date on the study so I'm assuming it's very recent. It's interesting that the earlier Fraxel models were non-ablative (non-tissue destroying), which was touted as one of their major advantages...yet this newer model returns to an ablative approach using C02. Maybe (hopefully) it will turn out that a combination of CO2 and Fraxel laser technology works best. But from all the posts I've read, it seems to me that the Fraxel line hasn't YET reached the point where those of us with deeper scarring would be satisfied.
Just something to think about, for what it's worth. :think:
I was able to find the following study on the new Fraxel 3 laser that totally ablates (destroys) the dermal tissue with Co2.
Interesting paper, thanks punkboy. This is for fractional CO2? I don't see that mentioned. The depth is consisent with Fraxel 1550, but the slides do show a hole in the epidermis. I read somewhere that erbium is good for targetting scars because scar tissue holds less water than normal skin.... or something... So why the move to C02? More collagen tightening perhaps?
Thanks punk!!! Great link. The site looks relatively new. I hope they get more posters up soon.
This is a great way to look for info. I use periodical indexes which are still stuck in the pre-information age "card catalog" timezone.
I'm curious how did you find that site? A search engine?
There are some other interesting studies on the main poster page too:
https://www.imagestore.md/aslms/posters/gallery.php
Ok. I think I'm gonna wait till the new Fraxel Re:pair comes out to have my surgery. It is suppose to be out this coming Fall. From what I've gathered, there are many docs that think that Erbium (fraxel re:store or fraxel 1 or 2) is inferior to Co2 based lasers. I was able to find the following study on the new Fraxel 3 laser that totally ablates (destroys) the dermal tissue with Co2. In the skin biospy, where the dermal tissue was destroyed, the entire zone was replaced with complete new collagen within three months.Thanks for the link, rpunkboy! I'd just like to comment on a couple of things about the study. (BTW this comment isn't really directed to you, I'm just quoting to show what I'm referring to.)
I've been researching Fraxel for my acne scars, and being both a cautious person and a poor one(!), I gotta have decent proof before I go for treatment. Sorry if I bring anyone down, but for the cost of treatment I want more reassurance it will work!
One thing I notice is that in this study, the new laser is used not for scarring but for skin tightening. So far, from posts I've read, it seems like people are getting better results with the Fraxel series for superficial scarring & wrinkling, melasma and rosacea than for deeper scarring, and this study doesn't suggest anything different for the new laser. (Yet.)
The study also makes no mention of whether the laser was used on anyone's FACE. The pictures are of someone's arm. I would be extremely cautious about making any judgment at all about its effectiveness (and possible side effects) until I saw the results of facial testing. (Nope, I won't be first in line for that either...)
I don't see a date on the study so I'm assuming it's very recent. It's interesting that the earlier Fraxel models were non-ablative (non-tissue destroying), which was touted as one of their major advantages...yet this newer model returns to an ablative approach using C02. Maybe (hopefully) it will turn out that a combination of CO2 and Fraxel laser technology works best. But from all the posts I've read, it seems to me that the Fraxel line hasn't YET reached the point where those of us with deeper scarring would be satisfied.
Just something to think about, for what it's worth. :think:
The treatments are terribly expensive, and you are right to research it. If not just for your pocket book, but to make sure that the laser is right for you and you go in with realistic expectations.
It's important to realize that the fraxel was researched and developed with an intent to be marketed to aging baby boomers. They are the pensioneers who have the money to pay for these procedures, en mass. That's truly why you see so much focus on age related skin disorders like wrinkles and skin laxity. It's the economics of science/medicine. . .
The benefit to acne scars was sort of a nice side application, which they've been expanding the research on and developing new parameters for. And of course there are now several copycat fractional resurfacing technologies out there. I guess it's a good thing since the competition drives innovation and HOPEFULLY will reduce cost.
In the meantime though it makes it confusing for consumers who have to do a lot of research!
The whole ablative/non-ablative concept is kind of tricky when it comes to fractional resurfacing. It depends on the settings. If you do the lowest settings with one pass of fraxel, it is essentially non-ablative. If you do the highest setting with multiple passes, it approaches ablative, but is still fractional. In other words at higher settings, it ablates (destroys) skin cells but not over an entire swath of skin, but rather in very small closely spaced columns.
To understand the advantage of fraxel, you have to look at the way traditional CO2 ablative lasers worked. they basically just burned off an entire layer of skin down to the dermis. this creates an open wound with lots of downtime and risk for scarring/infection. also when the skin grows back it looks weird, the texture looks unnatural (think joan rivers or some of the aged bond girls who've had it done).
also the SR1500 doesn't actually create an open wound in each MTZ (ablated column). the tissue gets heated to the point where it denatures and gets replaced with new cells. (this might not make sense unless you look at histology slides of fraxel skin. but its an important distinction between ablative and fractional resurfacing.)
however its interesting to note, that if you look at the histology slides in the study above for the new fraxel re:pair, the MTZs that are created show an actual open micro-wound. the epidermis actually "invaginates" the wound and causes a shrinkage of the skin.
It really leaves me wondering what kind of effect that would have on severely scarred skin. would the scar tissue be completely ablated and surrounding tissue invaginate? if so it should give better results than the SR1500, especially on stretch marks. since with striae distensia the epidermis is completely intact and unscarred. the dermal scarring could be completely ablated and the epidermal invagination would be maximized. further, the contracture of stria would reduce its size. very interesting. reliant should do a study on that.
that news article says the re:pair MJ levels are measured in MAZ (per microablative zone). does this mean they are using a stamping technique? (as opposed to scanning)
i forgot its carbon dioxide too. which ur right punk, means it targets tissue less discriminately than fraxel SR. destroys hemoglobin as well as evaporates water. not sure what the exact chromophore is for co2. have to research that.
http://www.reliant-tech.com/newsdetails.cfm?NEWSID=62
OK so the SR1500 is now the Fraxel re:store
the 750 is the Fraxel re:fine
the re:pair is the same (as far as I can tell)
reminds me of when they retroactively turned the "Fraxel Laser" into the "Fraxel SR 750". i guess it shows that they never planned any of these advances, they are true innovations.
or maybe, just maybe they are trying to recycle all the left over SR machines? by giving them a new brand and marketing?? LOL
Looks like the CFO and director of marketing are running Reliant (like most companies). So do practitioners now have to buy 3-4 separate systems to offer all these??
again, the economics of healthcare:
For physicians such as OB/GYNs, family physicians and those who are simply looking to expand their practice into a growing sector, the Fraxel re:fine system is the ideal treatment to boost their bottom line.
I can't believe they are marketing a cosmetic laser to GPs. I can see doing it to OB/GYNs who could offer it to patients that get melasma, striae, or c-rings . . . but a general practitioner? that's just greed:
clinicians now have the perfect auxiliary service to bring extra revenue to their practice
yeah cause making sure my poor starving doctor can buy that new yacht is what this technology is all about! money, money, money . . .
http://www.reliant-tech.com/newsdetails.cfm?NEWSID=62apparently its called re:fine now? or is this something else??? just like when they retroactively turned the "Fraxel Laser" into the "Fraxel SR 750". i guess it shows that they never planned any of these advances, they are true innovations.
again, the economics of healthcare:
For physicians such as OB/GYNs, family physicians and those who are simply looking to expand their practice into a growing sector, the Fraxel re:fine system is the ideal treatment to boost their bottom line.
I can't believe they are marketing a cosmetic laser to GPs. I can see doing it to OB/GYNs who could offer it to patients that get melasma, striae, or c-rings . . . but a general practitioner? that's just greed:
clinicians now have the perfect auxiliary service to bring extra revenue to their practice
yeah cause making sure my poor starving doctor can buy that new yacht is what this technology is all about! money, money, money . . .
Not to get into a tangent, but this is basic capitalism. Without capitalism, we wouldn't even have these options.
Also, why not market the GPs? It's not like operating the machine requires some special dermatological expertise...And there are plenty of people who are having trouble finding fraxel docs. This is the way to get them the treatment.
i disagree. lasers in the hands of GPs is not good. there is a line that is crossed when a doctor with no dermatological training starts doing these procedures.
in reality it will be his nurse doing the actual procedure, which is just another degree of separation removed.
dermatologists have a lot of extra training to become derms. a GP is not skilled and trained enough. moreover, GPs are usually GPs because they couldn't get a specialized residency when they graduated med school. i.e, they are at the bottom of their class.
i agree that capitalism and innovation go hand in hand. but its obvious that reliant just got mega bucks in venture capital and they are using it to unscrupulously brand and market their laser. perhaps all the copycat technology is whats really driving them to do it, but I'm sure there are internal motivations at reliant as well.
if reliant really wanted to stay ahead of the game that money would go into R&D, not re-marketing old technology (i.e, the fraxel 750 as the Fraxel re:fine). did they think no one would notice?
also making the laser (and healthcare technology in general) more affordable and easier to use is the real goal if you want to increase accessibility.
i disagree. lasers in the hands of GPs is not good. there is a line that is crossed when a doctor with no dermatological training starts doing these procedures.in reality it will be his nurse doing the actual procedure, which is just another degree of separation removed.
dermatologists have a lot of extra training to become derms. a GP is not skilled and trained enough. moreover, GPs are usually GPs because they couldn't get a specialized residency when they graduated med school. i.e, they are at the bottom of their class.
i agree that capitalism and innovation go hand in hand. but its obvious that reliant just got mega bucks in venture capital and they are using it to unscrupulously brand and market their laser. perhaps all the copycat technology is whats really driving them to do it, but I'm sure their are internal motivations at reliant as well.
I disagree on fraxel and GPs. My dermatological team, despite being comprised of some of the best derms in Boston, adds pretty much nothing over what a GP could offer. The fact that these derms are already letting their nurses and PAs do these procedures is more than enough of a testament that GPs could do it as well (whether or not you believe that GPs really are the bottom of the barrel of doctors).
Being an investment professional at a venture capital firm (who has worked with Three Arch, one of the big investors in Reliant), I am quite familiar with what venture capital firms fund, and it certainly is not branding and marketing. Anyone who pitches that at my firm would be kicked out the door and laughed at.
What they are actually funding is new products (like the fractional CO2). Plus, does it really cost $11M to rename your product(s) and to put up a couple press releases on your website?
the re:pair was developed long before the venture capitalist deal was done on april 12. the millions from venture capitalists had nothing to do with the re:pair development.
except maybe that it showed to the venture capitalists that reliant was an attractive company to invest in.
its obvious that all those millions are now going to clever marketing to make sure when people think of fractional resurfacing they only want (cue music) the one true FRAXEL. just look at all the name games that are being played.
is the technology actually changing (in reference to the re:fine, re:store name changes)? becoming cheaper? no. its solely marketing purposes.
as for doctors performing this. i think its also an ethical question. should general practitioners be devoting office hours to cosmetic procedures in spite of general check ups and the like? because you know they aren't going to increase their office hours.
this really reminds me of what proactive did. they took benzol peroxide and alcohol wash, gave it a nice name, spent MILLIONS on celebrity endorsements and woirldwide television commercials, etc. when in reality you can get a $10 prescription for the same active ingredients twice as strong.
i suppose reliant pushed the envelope technology wise so now they are following suit on the business end of it. i just hope it stays more focused on the technology than the sales.
i mean they have to realize from their growing popularity that if you keep innovating and creating useful products the market will beat path to your door. demand is already so high.
it all just gives me the feeling that reliant is getting ready to go IPO and corporate. so they are creating an ideology and line of products which is really just one laser. (ok two if you count the re:pair).
like i said in an earlier post. at the depth of 1.4 mm there's not much farther they can go innovation wise. so i'm sure reliant had a meeting where they sat down and said 'look, we have some great innovations and they are approaching the limit of usefulness. we are starting to get many competitors. lets think about focusing on branding and marketing this technology, widening its sales and application, etc.'
the re:pair was developed long before the venture capitalist deal was done on april 12. the millions from venture capitalists had nothing to do with the re:pair development.except maybe that it showed to the venture capitalists that reliant was a good company to invest in.
its obvious that all those millions are now going to clever marketing to make sure when people think of fractional resurfacing they only want (cue music) the one true FRAXEL. just look at all the name games that are being played.
is the technology actually changing (in reference to name changes)? becoming cheaper? no.
as for doctors performing this. i think its also an ethical question. should general practitioners be devoting office hours to cosmetic procedures in spite of general check ups and the like? because you know they aren't going to increase their office hours.
this really reminds me of what proactive did. they took benzol peroxide and alcohol wash, gave it a nice name, spent millions of celebrity endorsements and commercials, etc.
you're just making arbitrary statements with no evidence to support anything you actually say. i'll address them one by one:
"the re:pair was developed long before the venture capitalist deal was done"
R&D includes not just researching and engineering the product but running (and paying for) clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety. In addition, might there not be a large likelihood that they're R&Ding fraxel 4 and beyond?
"except maybe that it showed to the venture capitalists that reliant was a good company to invest in."
The venture money that just went in was not the first venture investment. My resources show that Reliant has received 4 previous rounds of venture capital money that total $40M+ starting in 2003.
"its obvious that all those millions are now going to clever marketing"
What clever marketing? Like I said, they changed the name of their product and issued a couple press releases. You say celebrity endorsement commercials similar to proactiv. I haven't seen a single commercial for fraxel yet (and there never will be). Where are they spending these millions on marketing? They aren't.
Like I said before, venture capitalists would never allow their money or the majority of their money to be spent on marketing. That's just not what venture capital money is used for. If a company wants money to spend for those types of things, there are other institutions that provide that sort of money (e.g., institutional banks that are looking for a lower return on their investment like Silicon Valley Bank).
"is the technology actually changing (in reference to name changes)? becoming cheaper? no."
Why would these things change just because the name changed?
"as for doctors performing this. i think its also an ethical question."
This is a change in topic from the previous question of whether GPs are skilled enough. Like I said, if derms are allowing their nurses to do it, then GPs should be skilled enough to do it. I personally think there is no ethics problem here, but that's a whole different debate.
oh well. i hope your right zonk.
i wouldn't worry about it. instead, i would worry about why cynosure isn't doing as good of a job marketing their product: