Guest guest Posted February 1, 2001 Report Share Posted February 1, 2001 Sheila, The 550 filter is shallow penetration and concentrates heat at the surface layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause more redness and post op flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate deeper and carry heat with them. The Epilight has a three second pause between blasts as opposed to the Photoderm's 10 second pause, and the Epilight energy settings are roughly 10 points higher in impact than Photoderm. That is to say that 50j on Epilight equals 60j on Photoderm. The Epilight will handle a 590 filter but not a 550. Not sure about the 570. ***Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.*** Here are my settings for tx #5 on 5/26/00: Device=Epilight Filter=590 Fluence=52j Pulses#=3 Pulse Duration=3.0ms Pulse Delay=20.0ms Here are my settings for tx #9 on 5/26/00: This tx was more aggressive than #5. Device=Epilight Filter=590 Fluence=60j Pulses#=3 Pulse Duration=3.0ms Pulse Delay=10.0ms Notice that the joules were higher on tx 9, plus the delay between pulses was shortened from 20 to 10 ms. The shortened pulse delay was intended to cause more heat retention by targeted vessels between pulses. Also I received over 450 blasts (1350+ pulses) during tx 9, as compared to about 320 blasts for tx 5. Please keep in mind that joule settings on Epilight are more aggressive than the Photoderm equivalent. Your doc should know this but you might want to query him if he decides to use the Epilight. Hope this helps. ~Jim _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2001 Report Share Posted February 1, 2001 Sheila, The 550 filter is shallow penetration and concentrates heat at the surface layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause more redness and post op flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate deeper and carry heat with them. The Epilight has a three second pause between blasts as opposed to the Photoderm's 10 second pause, and the Epilight energy settings are roughly 10 points higher in impact than Photoderm. That is to say that 50j on Epilight equals 60j on Photoderm. The Epilight will handle a 590 filter but not a 550. Not sure about the 570. ***Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.*** Here are my settings for tx #5 on 5/26/00: Device=Epilight Filter=590 Fluence=52j Pulses#=3 Pulse Duration=3.0ms Pulse Delay=20.0ms Here are my settings for tx #9 on 5/26/00: This tx was more aggressive than #5. Device=Epilight Filter=590 Fluence=60j Pulses#=3 Pulse Duration=3.0ms Pulse Delay=10.0ms Notice that the joules were higher on tx 9, plus the delay between pulses was shortened from 20 to 10 ms. The shortened pulse delay was intended to cause more heat retention by targeted vessels between pulses. Also I received over 450 blasts (1350+ pulses) during tx 9, as compared to about 320 blasts for tx 5. Please keep in mind that joule settings on Epilight are more aggressive than the Photoderm equivalent. Your doc should know this but you might want to query him if he decides to use the Epilight. Hope this helps. ~Jim _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2001 Report Share Posted February 1, 2001 // Here are my settings for tx #9 on 5/26/00: // Correction; tx #9 was 11/29/00. Sorry. ~Jim _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2001 Report Share Posted February 1, 2001 // Here are my settings for tx #9 on 5/26/00: // Correction; tx #9 was 11/29/00. Sorry. ~Jim _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Jim, Sheila, My 4th treatment used following parameters: Device=Epilight Filter=590 Fluence=48j Pulses#=3 Pulse Duration=3.5ms Pulse Delay=10.0ms Note that these are quite similar to what Jim received. Perhaps not surprising, since we are both being treated by Bitter Sr trained derms with Epilight machine. Jim is absolutely right on difference between machines, but I have recently learned that individual machines 'drift' and periodically need to be recalibrated to maintain same fluence - hence actual delivered fluences can vary between two identical machines ... (as if this wasn't already complicated enough ...) I started to see my very first really noticeable improvement in both facial telangiectasia and background redness about 2.5 weeks after this 4th treatment. BTW, telangiectasia were initially passed with 570 filter, and then the above settings were applied to full face. Rick > Sheila, > The 550 filter is shallow penetration and concentrates heat at the surface > layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause more redness and post op > flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate deeper and carry heat with > them. The Epilight has a three second pause between blasts as opposed to the > Photoderm's 10 second pause, and the Epilight energy settings are roughly 10 > points higher in impact than Photoderm. That is to say that 50j on Epilight > equals 60j on Photoderm. The Epilight will handle a 590 filter but not a > 550. Not sure about the 570. ***Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on > any of the above.*** > > Here are my settings for tx #5 on 5/26/00: > Device=Epilight > Filter=590 > Fluence=52j > Pulses#=3 > Pulse Duration=3.0ms > Pulse Delay=20.0ms > > Here are my settings for tx #9 on 5/26/00: > This tx was more aggressive than #5. > Device=Epilight > Filter=590 > Fluence=60j > Pulses#=3 > Pulse Duration=3.0ms > Pulse Delay=10.0ms > > Notice that the joules were higher on tx 9, plus the delay between pulses > was shortened from 20 to 10 ms. The shortened pulse delay was intended to > cause more heat retention by targeted vessels between pulses. Also I > received over 450 blasts (1350+ pulses) during tx 9, as compared to about > 320 blasts for tx 5. Please keep in mind that joule settings on Epilight are > more aggressive than the Photoderm equivalent. Your doc should know this but > you might want to query him if he decides to use the Epilight. Hope this > helps. > ~Jim > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Jim, Sheila, My 4th treatment used following parameters: Device=Epilight Filter=590 Fluence=48j Pulses#=3 Pulse Duration=3.5ms Pulse Delay=10.0ms Note that these are quite similar to what Jim received. Perhaps not surprising, since we are both being treated by Bitter Sr trained derms with Epilight machine. Jim is absolutely right on difference between machines, but I have recently learned that individual machines 'drift' and periodically need to be recalibrated to maintain same fluence - hence actual delivered fluences can vary between two identical machines ... (as if this wasn't already complicated enough ...) I started to see my very first really noticeable improvement in both facial telangiectasia and background redness about 2.5 weeks after this 4th treatment. BTW, telangiectasia were initially passed with 570 filter, and then the above settings were applied to full face. Rick > Sheila, > The 550 filter is shallow penetration and concentrates heat at the surface > layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause more redness and post op > flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate deeper and carry heat with > them. The Epilight has a three second pause between blasts as opposed to the > Photoderm's 10 second pause, and the Epilight energy settings are roughly 10 > points higher in impact than Photoderm. That is to say that 50j on Epilight > equals 60j on Photoderm. The Epilight will handle a 590 filter but not a > 550. Not sure about the 570. ***Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on > any of the above.*** > > Here are my settings for tx #5 on 5/26/00: > Device=Epilight > Filter=590 > Fluence=52j > Pulses#=3 > Pulse Duration=3.0ms > Pulse Delay=20.0ms > > Here are my settings for tx #9 on 5/26/00: > This tx was more aggressive than #5. > Device=Epilight > Filter=590 > Fluence=60j > Pulses#=3 > Pulse Duration=3.0ms > Pulse Delay=10.0ms > > Notice that the joules were higher on tx 9, plus the delay between pulses > was shortened from 20 to 10 ms. The shortened pulse delay was intended to > cause more heat retention by targeted vessels between pulses. Also I > received over 450 blasts (1350+ pulses) during tx 9, as compared to about > 320 blasts for tx 5. Please keep in mind that joule settings on Epilight are > more aggressive than the Photoderm equivalent. Your doc should know this but > you might want to query him if he decides to use the Epilight. Hope this > helps. > ~Jim > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Jim, Sheila, My 4th treatment used following parameters: Device=Epilight Filter=590 Fluence=48j Pulses#=3 Pulse Duration=3.5ms Pulse Delay=10.0ms Note that these are quite similar to what Jim received. Perhaps not surprising, since we are both being treated by Bitter Sr trained derms with Epilight machine. Jim is absolutely right on difference between machines, but I have recently learned that individual machines 'drift' and periodically need to be recalibrated to maintain same fluence - hence actual delivered fluences can vary between two identical machines ... (as if this wasn't already complicated enough ...) I started to see my very first really noticeable improvement in both facial telangiectasia and background redness about 2.5 weeks after this 4th treatment. BTW, telangiectasia were initially passed with 570 filter, and then the above settings were applied to full face. Rick > Sheila, > The 550 filter is shallow penetration and concentrates heat at the surface > layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause more redness and post op > flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate deeper and carry heat with > them. The Epilight has a three second pause between blasts as opposed to the > Photoderm's 10 second pause, and the Epilight energy settings are roughly 10 > points higher in impact than Photoderm. That is to say that 50j on Epilight > equals 60j on Photoderm. The Epilight will handle a 590 filter but not a > 550. Not sure about the 570. ***Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on > any of the above.*** > > Here are my settings for tx #5 on 5/26/00: > Device=Epilight > Filter=590 > Fluence=52j > Pulses#=3 > Pulse Duration=3.0ms > Pulse Delay=20.0ms > > Here are my settings for tx #9 on 5/26/00: > This tx was more aggressive than #5. > Device=Epilight > Filter=590 > Fluence=60j > Pulses#=3 > Pulse Duration=3.0ms > Pulse Delay=10.0ms > > Notice that the joules were higher on tx 9, plus the delay between pulses > was shortened from 20 to 10 ms. The shortened pulse delay was intended to > cause more heat retention by targeted vessels between pulses. Also I > received over 450 blasts (1350+ pulses) during tx 9, as compared to about > 320 blasts for tx 5. Please keep in mind that joule settings on Epilight are > more aggressive than the Photoderm equivalent. Your doc should know this but > you might want to query him if he decides to use the Epilight. Hope this > helps. > ~Jim > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 --- Jim C wrote: > The 550 filter is shallow penetration and > concentrates heat at the surface > layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause > more redness and post op > flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate > deeper and carry heat with > them. Sheila-- I did fine after my first PD treatment, which was with the 570 filter. Txs 2 and 3 utilized the 550, which made me flare mightily! Strange thing was, once the flare died down, my skin looked much better than it had pre-treatment, though it was highly sensitive. With subsequent txs, I moved back to 570 and 590 with no further post-tx flaring. My PD clinician told me that for those with lots of inflammation (evidenced by things like lots of surface papules), it's quite common to have flaring after tx with the 550. __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 --- Jim C wrote: > The 550 filter is shallow penetration and > concentrates heat at the surface > layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause > more redness and post op > flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate > deeper and carry heat with > them. Sheila-- I did fine after my first PD treatment, which was with the 570 filter. Txs 2 and 3 utilized the 550, which made me flare mightily! Strange thing was, once the flare died down, my skin looked much better than it had pre-treatment, though it was highly sensitive. With subsequent txs, I moved back to 570 and 590 with no further post-tx flaring. My PD clinician told me that for those with lots of inflammation (evidenced by things like lots of surface papules), it's quite common to have flaring after tx with the 550. __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 --- Jim C wrote: > The 550 filter is shallow penetration and > concentrates heat at the surface > layers of the skin, so it generally tends to cause > more redness and post op > flareups than the 570 and 590, which penetrate > deeper and carry heat with > them. Sheila-- I did fine after my first PD treatment, which was with the 570 filter. Txs 2 and 3 utilized the 550, which made me flare mightily! Strange thing was, once the flare died down, my skin looked much better than it had pre-treatment, though it was highly sensitive. With subsequent txs, I moved back to 570 and 590 with no further post-tx flaring. My PD clinician told me that for those with lots of inflammation (evidenced by things like lots of surface papules), it's quite common to have flaring after tx with the 550. __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.