Double Pass 595 nm Pulsed Dye Laser Does Not Enhance the Efficacy of Port Wine Stains Compared with Single Pass: A Randomized Comparison with Histological Examination.

<bold><italic>Objective:</italic></bold> To compare the efficacy and safety of double-pass pulsed dye laser (DWL) and single-pass PDL (SWL) in treating virgin port wine stain (PWS). <bold><italic>Background:</italic></bold> The increase in the extent of vascular damage attributed to the use of double-pass techniques for PWS remains inconclusive. A prospective, side-by-side comparison with a histological study for virgin PWS is still lacking. <bold><italic>Materials and methods:</italic></bold> Twenty-one patients (11 flat PWS, 10 hypertrophic PWS) with untreated PWS underwent 3 treatments at 2-month intervals. Each PWS was divided into three treatment sites: SWL, DWL, and untreated control. Chromametric and visual evaluation of the efficacy and evaluation of side effects were conducted 3 months after final treatment. Biopsies were taken at the treated sites immediately posttreatment. <bold><italic>Results:</italic></bold> Chromametric and visual evaluation suggested that DWL sites showed no significant improvement compared with SWL (<italic>p</italic> > 0.05) in treating PWS. The mean depth of photothermal damage to the vessels was limited to a maximum of 0.36–0.41 mm in both SWL and DWL sides. Permanent side effects were not observed in any patients. <bold><italic>Conclusions:</italic></bold> Double-pass PDL does not enhance PWS clearance. To improve the clearance of PWS lesions, either the depth of laser penetration should be increased or greater photothermal damage to vessels should be generated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]