Comparison of the Effectiveness of Nonablative Fractional Laser versus Pulsed-Dye Laser in Thyroidectomy Scar Prevention

Ha, Ji Min; Kim, Hansu; Cho, Eun Byul; Park, Gyeong Hun; Park, Eun Joo; Kim, Kwang Ho; Kim, Lee Su; Kim, Kwang Joong

doi:10.5021/ad.2014.26.5.615

Cited by 34 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most frequently used clinical evaluation scale was Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) which was applied in 14 studies. 15,16,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Other major outcome measures were photoevaluation (n = 8), visual analogue scale (VAS) (n = 7) and measurement of erythema and pigmentation by reflection devices (n = 4). Further outcome measures included a wide range of non-validated evaluation scales (Table 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McCraw/Bettencourt, 1999 35 Tierney/Kouba, 2009 38 Young/Lee, 2011 23 Kim/Park, 2011 24 Kim/Seo, 2014 27 Ha/Kim, 2014 26 Shin/Lee, 2014 45 Vazquez-Martinez/ Ocampo-Candiani, 2015 28 Kim/Lee, 2012 43 Figure 2 (a) Methodological quality of included studies presented as assessment of risk of bias. Criteria for judgement were as follows: random sequence generation; 'low risk of bias' refers to well-described randomization process such as referring to a random number generator, coin tossing, throwing dice, drawing lots.…”

Section: Comparing With Untreated Control Scarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early laser intervention to reduce scar formation – a systematic review

Karmisholt

Hærskjold

Karlsmark

et al. 2018

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of laser treatment to affect wound healing and subsequently minimize scar formation has been investigated in recent years. However, no systematic review links these clinical trials. The aim of this study was to systematically review and evaluate clinical evidence for early laser intervention to reduce scar formation in studies where laser treatment was introduced less than 3 months after wounding. We searched PubMed using relevant keywords in June 2017. Titles, abstracts and articles were sorted according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Methodological quality was evaluated according to Cochrane Collaborations risk-of-bias assessment guideline by two independent authors. Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. In total, 22 of 25 studies were controlled studies, and 17 of 25 studies compared laser treatment vs. untreated control scars. The following laser devices have been investigated: pulsed dye laser (PDL), potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser, fractional erbium:glass 1540 nm/1550 nm, fractional/full ablation erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) laser or fractional CO laser. Eighteen studies applied laser treatments 2-4 times with 2- to 8-week intervals, while seven studies applied only one laser treatment. Follow-up time ranged from 1 to 12 months with 18 studies using a follow-up time ≤3 months. In general, laser-treated wounds and scars showed benefit from laser intervention, though not always reaching significance. Significant scar improvement was found in three of four studies using laser treatment in inflammation phase, in six of 16 studies with laser initiated in the proliferation phase and in two of five studies in the remodelling phase. High risk of bias was found in randomization and allocation concealment, and low risk of bias with regard to blinding of outcome assessment and lost to follow-up. In conclusion, laser intervention when introduced in inflammation, proliferation or remodelling phase has the potential to reduce cutaneous scar formation. Further, high-quality studies are needed before standard protocols can be implemented in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparing With Untreated Control Scarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early laser intervention to reduce scar formation – a systematic review

Karmisholt

Hærskjold

Karlsmark

et al. 2018

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of increasing demands for scar treatments and the limitations of previous treatment methods, various types of laser treatments have been introduced. Recently, non‐ablative fractional lasers (NAFL) have been used for scar management, and they have shown promising results . The NAFL creates small columns of coagulation in skin, while keeping surrounding tissues intact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This pattern of microscopic thermal damage stimulates epidermal turnover and dermal collagen remodelling. As the stratum corneum, which contains relatively less water, remains intact and epidermal function is preserved, adverse effects and recovery time are significantly reduced in NAFL compared with other ablative devices …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination therapy using non‐ablative fractional laser and intralesional triamcinolone injection for hypertrophic scars and keloids treatment

Shin

Cho

Park

et al. 2019

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combinations of various treatment modalities were shown to be more effective than monotherapy when treating hypertrophic scars and keloids. This study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of combination therapy with non‐ablative fractional laser and intralesional steroid injection. From May 2015 to June 2017, a total of 38 patients with hypertrophic scars or keloids were evaluated. The control group of 21 patients received steroid injection alone, and 17 patients (the combined group) received 1550‐nm erbium‐glass fractional laser treatment and steroid injection simultaneously. The mean number of treatment sessions was statistically fewer in the combined group than in the control group (6.95 vs 5.47, P = .042). There was a significant difference in the patient's scale in the combined group (14.62 vs 22.82, P = .005); however, the observer's scale was not significantly different (17.92 vs 20.55, P = .549). The recurrence rate was 38.1% (8/21) in the control group and 35.3% (6/17) in the combined groups and showed no significant difference (P = .859). However, the mean remission period was statistically longer in the combined group (3.00 months vs 4.17 months, P = .042). Combination therapy with non‐ablative fractional laser and intralesional steroid injection showed better results for the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids with fewer treatment sessions, better patient satisfaction, and longer remission periods.

show abstract

“…Previous reports have described good therapeutic results in minimizing the scars with fractional lasers and intralesional steroid injections 1234. However, in the cases of narrow linear scars, the fractional laser can damage the surrounding tissue despite using the smallest spot size.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%