Suhyun Cho1, Jin Young Jung, Jung U Shin, Ju Hee Lee. 1. 1 Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine , Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of treatments with photothermolysis systems (FPS) and carbon dioxide fractional laser system (CO2 FS) for various types of scars in Asians. BACKGROUND DATA: Concerns regarding the cosmetic outcomes of scar treatment are increasing, and non-ablative 1550 nm erbium-glass FPS and 10,600 nm CO2 FS have been effectively used to improve the appearance of various types of scars. METHODS: One hundred patients with various types of scars were enrolled. The laser devices were chosen individually, based on the characteristics of the scars. We used a quintile grading scale for evaluations. RESULTS: At 3 months after treatment, the mean grade of improvement based on clinical assessment was 2.64±0.76 for FPS, 2.60±0.68 for CO2 FS, and 2.94±0.83 for combination therapy (p=0.249). The mean grade of improvement was higher in patients who received treatment within 3 years of scar development (2.84±0.69) than in patients who received treatment >3 years after scar development (2.51±0.82; p=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: FPS and CO2 FS were both effective and safe for the treatment of scars, and can also be used together safely as a combination treatment. The proper laser device and proper treatment time should be decided considering various factors.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of treatments with photothermolysis systems (FPS) and carbon dioxide fractional laser system (CO2 FS) for various types of scars in Asians. BACKGROUND DATA: Concerns regarding the cosmetic outcomes of scar treatment are increasing, and non-ablative 1550 nm erbium-glass FPS and 10,600 nm CO2 FS have been effectively used to improve the appearance of various types of scars. METHODS: One hundred patients with various types of scars were enrolled. The laser devices were chosen individually, based on the characteristics of the scars. We used a quintile grading scale for evaluations. RESULTS: At 3 months after treatment, the mean grade of improvement based on clinical assessment was 2.64±0.76 for FPS, 2.60±0.68 for CO2 FS, and 2.94±0.83 for combination therapy (p=0.249). The mean grade of improvement was higher in patients who received treatment within 3 years of scar development (2.84±0.69) than in patients who received treatment >3 years after scar development (2.51±0.82; p=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: FPS and CO2 FS were both effective and safe for the treatment of scars, and can also be used together safely as a combination treatment. The proper laser device and proper treatment time should be decided considering various factors.