Ablative Fractional 10 600 nm Carbon Dioxide Laser Versus Non-ablative Fractional 1540 nm Erbium-Glass Laser in Egyptian Post-acne Scar patients

Abstract

Introduction: Non-ablative fractional erbium-doped glass 1540 nm and fractional ablative 10600 nm carbon dioxide lasers are regarded as effective modalities for treating acne atrophic scars. In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of fractional CO2 laser and fractional nonablative 1540 nm erbium doped glass laser in treating post acne atrophic scars in Egyptian patients. Methods: Fifty-eight patients complaining of moderate and severe acne atrophic scars were randomly divided into 2 groups of 29 patients each. Both groups were subjected to 4 treatment sessions with 3 weeks interval and were followed up for 3 months. In group A, enrolled patients received CO2 laser, while in group B, patients were treated with 1540 nm erbium glass fractional laser. Results: Clinical assessment revealed that the mean grades of progress and improvement were higher with fractional 10600 nm CO2 laser but with non-significant difference between both treatments (P = 0.1). The overall patients' satisfaction with both lasers were not significantly different (P = 0.44). Conclusion: Both fractional ablative CO2 and fractional non-ablative erbium glass lasers are good modalities for treating acne scars with a high efficacy and safety profile and good patient satisfaction. The fractional ablative laser showed higher efficacy while non-ablative laser offered less pain and shorter downtime.

Efficacy of a combination of diluted calcium hydroxylapatite‐based filler and an energy‐based device for the treatment of facial atrophic acne scars

“…The highest GAS scores for the FACL‐treated patients were recorded for patients treated with an interval of > 6 weeks between sessions, which is 2 weeks longer than the 4‐week interval reported by others . The interval between treatment sessions did not significantly influence the results of the other two EBDs.…”

“…Ong and Bashir carried out a systematic review that compared the different lasers used for treating acne scars, and found that FACL for acne scars led to improvement ranging between 26% and 83%, whereas the range for NAFL was 26–50%. In most of the articles that described the use of FACL, between 1 and 3 treatment sessions were delivered, with an interval of 3–8 weeks (mostly 4 weeks) between sessions . Most of the reports on NAFL described the use of 1–6 treatments with 2‐ to 6‐week intervals between sessions .…”

Fractional carbon dioxide laser combined with intradermal injection of autologous platelet‐rich plasma versus noncross‐linked hyaluronic acid in the treatment of atrophic postacne scars: A split face study

“…Fractional CO 2 laser substantially improves moderate to severe acne scarring and yields superior outcomes when compared with nonablative lasers 20 . The intervening areas of untouched skin begin a rapid process of repair with epidermal stem cell reproduction and repopulation of the ablated columns of tissue with fibroblast‐derived neocollagenogenesis 21 …”

Treatment of atrophic acne scars with combination therapy of chemical reconstruction of skin scars method and fractionated nonablative laser: A retrospective analysis

“…Nonablative laser therapy has also been shown to be effective in the treatment of acne scars, especially rolling or boxcar scars. When compared against ablative lasers, nonablative lasers offer a quicker recovery time and lower side effect profile 12 . Kim et al conducted a split face study comparing the 1550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser vs CROSS method in the treatment of atrophic acne scars.…”