Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2026
Carbon Dioxide Fractional Laser Versus Micro-Plasma Radiofrequency for Hypertrophic Scar: A Two-Center, Open-Label, Randomized, Split-Scar Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wei Yuzhang, He Tian, Hua Tianzhen, Liang Chun, Luo Libo, Zhu Lianhua, Qiu Haixia, Zhang Lixia, Wu Huanhuan, Chen Youbai
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the effect and safety of carbon dioxide fractional laser (CDFL) and micro-plasma radiofrequency (MPRF) for the treatment of hypertrophic scars (HSs).
METHODS: Symmetric HSs were divided into two sides and randomly treated with either MPRF or CDFL. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), shear wave elastography (SWE), and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) were used to compare the changes between baseline and 1 month after the third treatment. The co-primary outcome was the difference in the score of VSS and POSAS.
RESULTS: VSS and POSAS assessments indicated that CDFL primarily improved scar color and vascularity, while MPRF mainly improved scar thickness, elasticity, and hardness. OCTA demonstrated greater changes with CDFL than with MPRF in average vascular diameter (CDFL, 45.84 ± 7.68 μm; MPRF, 32.52 ± 10.92 μm; p < 0.0001), density (CDFL, 0.385 ± 0.065; MPRF, 0.291 ± 0.082; p = 0.0166), and complexity (CDFL, 0.217 ± 0.046; MPRF, 0.145 ± 0.349; p < 0.0001). SWE confirmed greater changes with MPRF than with CDFL in thickness (CDFL, 0.079 ± 0.033 cm; MPRF, 0.102 ± 0.046 cm; p < 0.0001) and EM (CDFL, 9.97 ± 6.89 kPa; MPRF, 17.54 ± 9.35 kPa; p < 0.0001). No significant complications were recorded.
CONCLUSION: Both CDFL and MPRF were effective and safe for the treatment of HS, but they improved different scar domains. CDFL produced greater improvement in scar color and vascularity by reducing vascular diameter and density, whereas MPRF led to greater improvement in scar thickness and elasticity.
METHODS: Symmetric HSs were divided into two sides and randomly treated with either MPRF or CDFL. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), shear wave elastography (SWE), and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) were used to compare the changes between baseline and 1 month after the third treatment. The co-primary outcome was the difference in the score of VSS and POSAS.
RESULTS: VSS and POSAS assessments indicated that CDFL primarily improved scar color and vascularity, while MPRF mainly improved scar thickness, elasticity, and hardness. OCTA demonstrated greater changes with CDFL than with MPRF in average vascular diameter (CDFL, 45.84 ± 7.68 μm; MPRF, 32.52 ± 10.92 μm; p < 0.0001), density (CDFL, 0.385 ± 0.065; MPRF, 0.291 ± 0.082; p = 0.0166), and complexity (CDFL, 0.217 ± 0.046; MPRF, 0.145 ± 0.349; p < 0.0001). SWE confirmed greater changes with MPRF than with CDFL in thickness (CDFL, 0.079 ± 0.033 cm; MPRF, 0.102 ± 0.046 cm; p < 0.0001) and EM (CDFL, 9.97 ± 6.89 kPa; MPRF, 17.54 ± 9.35 kPa; p < 0.0001). No significant complications were recorded.
CONCLUSION: Both CDFL and MPRF were effective and safe for the treatment of HS, but they improved different scar domains. CDFL produced greater improvement in scar color and vascularity by reducing vascular diameter and density, whereas MPRF led to greater improvement in scar thickness and elasticity.