American journal of translational research · 2025
Long-term efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide (CO2) array laser versus erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser for acne scars.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xiao Chang, Zhang Jun, Peng Jing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a prevalent skin condition that often leads to facial scarring, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Laser therapies, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) array laser and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser, are widely used for acne scar management. This study aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of these two laser systems for the treatment of acne scars.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 254 patients with acne scars who were treated between January 2021 and January 2024. Among them, 124 patients received CO2 laser treatment, while 130 received Er:YAG laser treatment. Clinical data encompassing demographics, scar improvement, inflammatory markers, and patient satisfaction, were collected over one year. Evaluations were based on Extended Cook's Corrected Acne Scarring (ECCA) scores, VISIA Skin Analysis, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).
RESULTS: Er:YAG laser demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative pain (VAS: 3.12 ± 0.23 vs. CO2: 3.19 ± 0.21; P = 0.011) and shorter erythema resolution time (2.93 ± 0.64 vs. 3.11 ± 0.7 weeks; P = 0.029). Post-treatment INF-γ levels were higher in the Er:YAG group (853.68 ± 113.56 vs. 815.3 ± 120.28 pg/mL; P = 0.009). CO2 laser showed superior long-term scar reduction (ECCA), with the most pronounced improvement observed at 12 months (39.84 ± 3.26 vs. Er:YAG: 41.31 ± 4.88; P = 0.005). VISIA analysis revealed better outcomes for CO2 laser in pore size (7.55 ± 1.86 vs. 8.16 ± 1.14; P = 0.002) and porphyrins (81.33 ± 4.11 vs. 83.24 ± 5.24; P = 0.001). Treatment efficacy favored CO2, with significantly lower ineffective response rates (5.65% vs. 16.92%; P = 0.017), although persistent erythema was more common with CO2 (6.45% vs. 0.77%; P = 0.035). At 12 months, DLQI improvement was superior greater in the CO2 group (11.25 ± 1.98 vs. 12.01 ± 2.02; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: The CO2 laser demonstrated superior long-term efficacy for reducing acne scars compared to the Er:YAG laser, at the cost of increased persistent erythema. Conversely, the Er:YAG laser offered a better recovery profile with fewer adverse reactions.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 254 patients with acne scars who were treated between January 2021 and January 2024. Among them, 124 patients received CO2 laser treatment, while 130 received Er:YAG laser treatment. Clinical data encompassing demographics, scar improvement, inflammatory markers, and patient satisfaction, were collected over one year. Evaluations were based on Extended Cook's Corrected Acne Scarring (ECCA) scores, VISIA Skin Analysis, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).
RESULTS: Er:YAG laser demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative pain (VAS: 3.12 ± 0.23 vs. CO2: 3.19 ± 0.21; P = 0.011) and shorter erythema resolution time (2.93 ± 0.64 vs. 3.11 ± 0.7 weeks; P = 0.029). Post-treatment INF-γ levels were higher in the Er:YAG group (853.68 ± 113.56 vs. 815.3 ± 120.28 pg/mL; P = 0.009). CO2 laser showed superior long-term scar reduction (ECCA), with the most pronounced improvement observed at 12 months (39.84 ± 3.26 vs. Er:YAG: 41.31 ± 4.88; P = 0.005). VISIA analysis revealed better outcomes for CO2 laser in pore size (7.55 ± 1.86 vs. 8.16 ± 1.14; P = 0.002) and porphyrins (81.33 ± 4.11 vs. 83.24 ± 5.24; P = 0.001). Treatment efficacy favored CO2, with significantly lower ineffective response rates (5.65% vs. 16.92%; P = 0.017), although persistent erythema was more common with CO2 (6.45% vs. 0.77%; P = 0.035). At 12 months, DLQI improvement was superior greater in the CO2 group (11.25 ± 1.98 vs. 12.01 ± 2.02; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: The CO2 laser demonstrated superior long-term efficacy for reducing acne scars compared to the Er:YAG laser, at the cost of increased persistent erythema. Conversely, the Er:YAG laser offered a better recovery profile with fewer adverse reactions.