Why This Algorithm Matters in Clinical Practice

Laser treatment of vascular lesions—whether it’s leg telangiectasias, venulectasias, or facial veins—can be tricky. Many practitioners fall into one of two traps: overtreating with high fluences or undertreating by guessing settings. The study we’re breaking down here delivers something rare: a practical, tested algorithm that correlates vessel diameter to optimal fluence and pulse width when using a 1,064 nm Nd:YAG laser.

Instead of relying on manufacturer presets or anecdotal rules of thumb, this research lays the groundwork for consistent results, fewer adverse effects, and higher patient satisfaction.

What the Study Set Out to Solve

Most published settings for vascular lasers tend to generalize—suggesting a fluence range or pulse width window without consideration for specific vessel diameters. That’s a problem. Vessels as small as 0.2 mm behave very differently from vessels closer to 1 mm or more, especially when located at varying dermal depths.

This study used a rat model with controlled vessel sizes and histologic confirmation to determine the minimum effective dose (MED) needed for consistent vessel ablation across diameters. In doing so, it addressed three clinical questions:

• What pulse width is ideal for a given vessel diameter?
• How much fluence is really needed?
• What impact does spot size have on outcomes?

Methodology Highlights

• Laser: 1,064 nm Nd:YAG (Sciton Profile)
• Subjects: 15 Sprague–Dawley rats
• Spot Sizes: 3 mm and 6 mm (only 6 mm produced consistent results)
• Pulse Widths: 15–60 ms
• Fluences: 70–110 J/cm²
• Cooling: 5.8°C contact cooling
• Evaluation: Macroscopic inspection, video recording, histology

Vessels ranging from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm in diameter were treated and evaluated immediately and after 7 days for evidence of coagulation, thrombosis, and collateral damage.

Results: The Algorithm in Action

The data revealed a tight, exponential correlation between vessel diameter and ideal pulse width. Here’s the distilled, clinically usable version of their findings:

Key insight: Trying to “brute force” vessel closure with high fluence without the proper pulse width will lead to failure—or worse, complications.

Understanding TRT and Why Pulse Width Matters

At the heart of the algorithm is the concept of thermal relaxation time (TRT)—the time it takes for a target to cool by 50% of the delivered thermal energy. Larger vessels have longer TRTs and require longer pulse widths to heat the entire lumen without diffusing energy into surrounding tissue.

• Short pulse width + large vessel = insufficient energy = failure
• Long pulse width + small vessel = unwanted damage = risk

By dialing in pulse width to match vessel diameter, the laser energy remains confined within the vessel wall, allowing for clean coagulation without collateral burn or PIH.

Spot Size: Why 6 mm Beats 3 mm

The study found that a 3 mm spot size was ineffective at consistently ablating vessels 0.2–1 mm in diameter. The smaller beam allowed too much scatter and insufficient depth penetration.

With a 6 mm spot, energy was delivered more uniformly and penetrated deeper. Why?

• Wider beam = reduced scatter
• Higher fluence per unit area = more effective energy transfer
• Lower chance of overheating epidermis with contact cooling

Clinical implication: While a 3 mm spot may reduce discomfort, it often requires much higher fluence and multiple passes—raising the risk of burns and hyperpigmentation. Choose 6 mm whenever feasible. Beware of underlying chromophores such as hair follicles which compete for absorption with vascular Nd:YAG at 1064 nm.

Clinical Comparison: How This Stacks Up

Bottom line: longer pulse widths are more effective for larger vessels and reduce the need for repeated treatments or escalating fluence.

Histologic Confirmation: Proof Beyond the Surface

What made this study especially impactful is that it didn’t rely solely on visual clearance. Histology revealed:

• Complete vessel thrombosis within 7 days
• No rupture or necrosis of surrounding tissue
• Coagulative necrosis isolated to vessel wall

This means the settings weren’t just cosmetically effective—they were biologically validated.

Clinical Guidelines You Can Apply Today

• Always measure or estimate vessel diameter before choosing your settings
• Start with pulse width, then choose the lowest effective fluence
• Use 6 mm spot sizes whenever possible (caution in hair-bearing regions, especially on the face)
• Do not exceed 120 J/cm² fluence unless clinically warranted
• Use contact cooling to protect epidermis

This algorithm is especially useful when treating lower extremity reticular veins or venulectasias, where target depth and diameter vary widely.

Limitations & Clinical Considerations

While the study provides valuable data, it was conducted in an animal model. Human tissue variables—such as melanin content, skin thickness, and vascular fragility—still require consideration. However, the principles of TRT, spot size optimization, and dose minimization apply across the board.

Word of caution: always consider Fitzpatrick type, sun exposure, and patient history when adapting these guidelines to your practice.

Download the Full PDF

Need to keep this algorithm handy for your next vascular patient? Download the peer-reviewed paper here:

📄 Download Full PDF

Expand Your Laser Mastery

If you’re serious about improving outcomes, minimizing side effects, and mastering laser-tissue interaction, don’t stop here. Learn directly from one of the industry’s top laser safety officers.

• 🎓 Live Course – Hands-on education, case reviews, and real-time feedback
• 💻 Online Course – Self-paced, in-depth training on all core parameters

Master the science. Deliver results. Build trust.