TY - JOUR
T1 - Non-ablative 1550 nm erbium-glass and ablative 10,600 nm carbon dioxide fractional lasers for various types of scars in asian people
T2 - Evaluation of 100 patients
AU - Cho, Suhyun
AU - Jung, Jin Young
AU - Shin, Jung U.
AU - Lee, Ju Hee
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Objective: We compared the efficacy and safety of treatments with photothermolysis systems (FPS) and carbon dioxide fractional laser system (CO2 FS) for various types of scars in Asians. Background data: Concerns regarding the cosmetic outcomes of scar treatment are increasing, and non-ablative 1550 nm erbium-glass FPS and 10,600 nm CO2 FS have been effectively used to improve the appearance of various types of scars. Methods: One hundred patients with various types of scars were enrolled. The laser devices were chosen individually, based on the characteristics of the scars. We used a quintile grading scale for evaluations. Results: At 3 months after treatment, the mean grade of improvement based on clinical assessment was 2.64±0.76 for FPS, 2.60±0.68 for CO2 FS, and 2.94±0.83 for combination therapy (p=0.249). The mean grade of improvement was higher in patients who received treatment within 3 years of scar development (2.84±0.69) than in patients who received treatment >3 years after scar development (2.51±0.82; p=0.042). Conclusions: FPS and CO2 FS were both effective and safe for the treatment of scars, and can also be used together safely as a combination treatment. The proper laser device and proper treatment time should be decided considering various factors.
AB - Objective: We compared the efficacy and safety of treatments with photothermolysis systems (FPS) and carbon dioxide fractional laser system (CO2 FS) for various types of scars in Asians. Background data: Concerns regarding the cosmetic outcomes of scar treatment are increasing, and non-ablative 1550 nm erbium-glass FPS and 10,600 nm CO2 FS have been effectively used to improve the appearance of various types of scars. Methods: One hundred patients with various types of scars were enrolled. The laser devices were chosen individually, based on the characteristics of the scars. We used a quintile grading scale for evaluations. Results: At 3 months after treatment, the mean grade of improvement based on clinical assessment was 2.64±0.76 for FPS, 2.60±0.68 for CO2 FS, and 2.94±0.83 for combination therapy (p=0.249). The mean grade of improvement was higher in patients who received treatment within 3 years of scar development (2.84±0.69) than in patients who received treatment >3 years after scar development (2.51±0.82; p=0.042). Conclusions: FPS and CO2 FS were both effective and safe for the treatment of scars, and can also be used together safely as a combination treatment. The proper laser device and proper treatment time should be decided considering various factors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891867119&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891867119&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/pho.2013.3608
DO - 10.1089/pho.2013.3608
M3 - Article
C2 - 24359265
AN - SCOPUS:84891867119
SN - 1549-5418
VL - 32
SP - 42
EP - 46
JO - Photomedicine and laser surgery
JF - Photomedicine and laser surgery
IS - 1
ER -