Discussion : Ablative lasers seem to achieve the highest degree of efficacy , albeit this is associated with significant pain and downtime , and the risk for long-term pigmentary changes .
Non-ablative fractional photothermolysis ( FP ) has a much safer profile but can not achieve as good cosmetic results .
The efficacies of fractional radiofrequency microneedling and radiofrequency are slightly inferior to that of FP but offer an even safer adverse profile .
Conclusion : Multiple devices have been used with varying levels of efficacy and very different safety profiles .
There is an overall lack of high- quality evidence about the effects of different interventions .
Introduction : Acne scarring is a very common problem , which can be extensive , and may lead to significant psychosocial morbidity .
Multiple types of treatments are used to ameliorate atrophic scars with varying degrees of success .
This paper provides an overview of the various energy-based modalities that are commonly employed against acne scarring .
Objectives and methods : A comprehensive literature search of papers published since 2008 was performed in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used energy-based treatments against post-acne scarring .
Non-ablative 1550-nm erbium-glass and ablative 10 600-nm carbon dioxide fractional lasers for acne scars: a randomized split-face study with blinded response evaluation.
BACKGROUND Non-ablative 1550-nm erbium-doped fractional photothermolysis systems ( FPS ) and 10 600-nm carbon dioxide fractional laser systems ( CO(2 ) FS ) have been effectively used to treat scars . OBJECTIVE We compared the efficacy and safety of single-session treatments of FPS and CO(2 ) FS for acne scars through a r and omized , split-face , evaluator-blinded study . METHODS Eight patients with acne scars were enrolled in this study . Half of each subject 's face was treated with FPS and the other half was treated with CO(2 ) FS . We used a quartile grading scale for evaluations . RESULTS At 3 months after the treatment , the mean grade of improvement based on clinical assessment was 2.0 + /- 0.5 for FPS and 2.5 + /- 0.8 for CO(2 ) FS . On each side treated by FPS and CO(2 ) FS , the mean duration of post-therapy crusting and scaling was 2.3 and 7.4 days respectively and that of post-therapy erythema was 7.5 and 11.5 days respectively . The mean VAS pain score was 3.9 + /- 2.0 with the FPS and 7.0 + /- 2.0 with the CO(2 ) FS . CONCLUSION We demonstrated the efficacy and safety of single-session acne scar treatment using FPS and CO(2 ) FS in East Asian patients . We believe that our study could be used as an essential reference when choosing laser modalities for scar treatment
Discussion : Ablative lasers seem to achieve the highest degree of efficacy , albeit this is associated with significant pain and downtime , and the risk for long-term pigmentary changes .
Non-ablative fractional photothermolysis ( FP ) has a much safer profile but can not achieve as good cosmetic results .
The efficacies of fractional radiofrequency microneedling and radiofrequency are slightly inferior to that of FP but offer an even safer adverse profile .
Conclusion : Multiple devices have been used with varying levels of efficacy and very different safety profiles .
There is an overall lack of high- quality evidence about the effects of different interventions .
Introduction : Acne scarring is a very common problem , which can be extensive , and may lead to significant psychosocial morbidity .
Multiple types of treatments are used to ameliorate atrophic scars with varying degrees of success .
This paper provides an overview of the various energy-based modalities that are commonly employed against acne scarring .
Objectives and methods : A comprehensive literature search of papers published since 2008 was performed in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used energy-based treatments against post-acne scarring .