BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A variety of high energy, pulsed, and scanned carbon dioxide lasers are available to perform cutaneous resurfacing. Rhytec has developed a device for skin regeneration that utilizes energy delivered via a burst of nitrogen plasma. This study was undertaken to benchmark the energy outputs of the plasma skin regeneration device as compared to an ultra-short pulsed carbon dioxide laser (the control device). The two systems were compared for time to complete healing, and the healing response post-treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three Yucatan mini-pigs were utilized for this study. Following anesthesia, five experimental sites were marked along the skin atop the psoas muscle on each side of the spine. Treatment was applied using either the plasma skin regeneration system or the carbon dioxide laser, with one site remaining untreated as a control. Biopsies were taken from all treatment sites 0, 2, 7, 14, 30, and 60 days following treatment and processed to hematoxylin-eosin staining. Histopathologic examination was performed by observers blinded as to the treatment conditions. RESULTS: Skin treated with the plasma skin regeneration device showed a wider range of tissue effects across the energy settings used as compared to the laser treatment. All treatment sites had clinically regenerated epidermis by 7 days after treatment, with active cellular response below the D/E junction noted at the day 30 time-point at energies ranging from 2 to 4 J. CONCLUSION: The Rhytec PSR system provides an attractive alternative to standard CO2 laser with good remodeling of tissue architecture. Epidermis regenerated after PSR treatment shows a smoother surface profile than adjacent untreated tissue.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A variety of high energy, pulsed, and scanned carbon dioxide lasers are available to perform cutaneous resurfacing. Rhytec has developed a device for skin regeneration that utilizes energy delivered via a burst of nitrogen plasma. This study was undertaken to benchmark the energy outputs of the plasma skin regeneration device as compared to an ultra-short pulsed carbon dioxide laser (the control device). The two systems were compared for time to complete healing, and the healing response post-treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three Yucatan mini-pigs were utilized for this study. Following anesthesia, five experimental sites were marked along the skin atop the psoas muscle on each side of the spine. Treatment was applied using either the plasma skin regeneration system or the carbon dioxide laser, with one site remaining untreated as a control. Biopsies were taken from all treatment sites 0, 2, 7, 14, 30, and 60 days following treatment and processed to hematoxylin-eosin staining. Histopathologic examination was performed by observers blinded as to the treatment conditions. RESULTS: Skin treated with the plasma skin regeneration device showed a wider range of tissue effects across the energy settings used as compared to the laser treatment. All treatment sites had clinically regenerated epidermis by 7 days after treatment, with active cellular response below the D/E junction noted at the day 30 time-point at energies ranging from 2 to 4 J. CONCLUSION: The Rhytec PSR system provides an attractive alternative to standard CO2 laser with good remodeling of tissue architecture. Epidermis regenerated after PSR treatment shows a smoother surface profile than adjacent untreated tissue.