photoderm versus vbeam (response to )

[Guest guest]

,

I read all the same info about the vbeam and the constricting, but I do

think it is worth a try before the photoderm. It is so much less

expensive, WAY less invasive, no prep, no down time. What has anyone got

to lose with it, except for it not working. Like you say, photoderm is

better if done by a very experienced doctor, well, what happens when you

don't get one of those doctors? I have read many disastrous results on

the support group from photoderm. Also to get to one of these

experienced doctors is very costly, you may need to travel and the down

time is longer. So, you have to be doing pretty damn good financially to

go through the process. I am a single working mom, the closest doctor to

me that is recommended for photoderm is 400 miles away, there is no way

I could swing it. If it was a one time deal and a very strong chance of

changing my life, it would be worth it. However I am very impressed with

one treatment of the vbeam and I have severe rosacea. I only drive an

hour to the doctor, it took 15 minutes and I was back at work THAT day!

Everybody should simply use the internet and do some of their own

research.

-

> The VBeam's main advantage over photoderm is that its pulses are

> extra long and more gentle on the skin and vessels. The problem is

> that it only uses one main wavelength, 595 nanometers, which is a good

> depth for treating facial telangiectasia (spider veins) and superficial

> redness, but not a great depth for the deeper flush vessels that make

> this condition so hard to defeat. Also, the cooling chip that is used

> on the laser is believed to constrict many vessels and " hide " them from

> the laser, leading to less than optimal results. The general consensus

> on the Vbeam though is that it is great on the spider veins, pretty

> good on redness and not great on the flushing. From what I've

> researched and been told, in the hands of an experienced doctor,

> photoderm usually outdoes the Vbeam.

>