Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Laser treatments in early wound healing improve scar appearance: a randomized split-wound trial with nonablative fractional laser exposures vs. untreated controls

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{f16aef32e71d49d8a0997086605f52e7,
title = "Laser treatments in early wound healing improve scar appearance: a randomized split-wound trial with nonablative fractional laser exposures vs. untreated controls",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: In recent years, various lasers have increasingly been applied during wound healing to minimize scar formation. However, no consensus regarding treatment procedures exists.OBJECTIVES: To assess scar formation clinically after three nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) exposures, targeting the inflammation, proliferation and remodelling wound healing phases in patients vs. untreated controls.METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed using a split-wound design to assess excisional wound halves treated with 1540-nm NAFL vs. no laser treatment. Three NAFL exposures were provided: immediately before surgery, at suture removal and 6 weeks after surgery. NAFL exposures were applied using two handpieces, sequentially distributing energy deeply and more superficially in the skin (40-50 mJ per microbeam). Evaluated at 3 months of follow-up, the primary outcome was blinded, on-site evaluation using the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS total; range from 6, normal skin to 60, worst imaginable scar). Secondary outcomes comprised blinded evaluation on the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and standardized assessment comparing scar sides, carried out by blinded on-site, photo and patient assessments. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03253484).RESULTS: Thirty of 32 patients completed the trial. At the 3-month follow-up, the NAFL-treated scar halves showed improvement compared with the untreated control halves on POSAS total: NAFL treated, median 11, interquartile range (IQR) 9-12 vs. control, median 12, IQR 10-16; P = 0·001. The POSAS subitems showed that the NAFL-treated halves were significantly less red and more pliable, and presented with smoother relief than the untreated controls. VSS total correspondingly revealed enhanced appearance in the NAFL-treated halves: median 2, IQR 1-2·5 vs. control, median 2, IQR 1·75-3, P = 0·007. The standardized assessment comparing appearance of scar halves demonstrated a low degree of correspondence between on-site, photo and patient assessments. NAFL-treated scars were rated as superior to untreated scars by 21 of 29 patients.CONCLUSIONS: NAFL-treated scars showed subtle improvement compared with untreated control scars.",
author = "Karmisholt, {K E} and Banzhaf, {C A} and M Glud and K Yeung and U Paasch and A Nast and M Haedersdal",
note = "{\circledC} 2018 British Association of Dermatologists.",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/bjd.17076",
language = "English",
volume = "179",
pages = "1307--1314",
journal = "British Journal of Dermatology",
issn = "0007-0963",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laser treatments in early wound healing improve scar appearance

T2 - a randomized split-wound trial with nonablative fractional laser exposures vs. untreated controls

AU - Karmisholt, K E

AU - Banzhaf, C A

AU - Glud, M

AU - Yeung, K

AU - Paasch, U

AU - Nast, A

AU - Haedersdal, M

N1 - © 2018 British Association of Dermatologists.

PY - 2018/12

Y1 - 2018/12

N2 - BACKGROUND: In recent years, various lasers have increasingly been applied during wound healing to minimize scar formation. However, no consensus regarding treatment procedures exists.OBJECTIVES: To assess scar formation clinically after three nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) exposures, targeting the inflammation, proliferation and remodelling wound healing phases in patients vs. untreated controls.METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed using a split-wound design to assess excisional wound halves treated with 1540-nm NAFL vs. no laser treatment. Three NAFL exposures were provided: immediately before surgery, at suture removal and 6 weeks after surgery. NAFL exposures were applied using two handpieces, sequentially distributing energy deeply and more superficially in the skin (40-50 mJ per microbeam). Evaluated at 3 months of follow-up, the primary outcome was blinded, on-site evaluation using the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS total; range from 6, normal skin to 60, worst imaginable scar). Secondary outcomes comprised blinded evaluation on the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and standardized assessment comparing scar sides, carried out by blinded on-site, photo and patient assessments. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03253484).RESULTS: Thirty of 32 patients completed the trial. At the 3-month follow-up, the NAFL-treated scar halves showed improvement compared with the untreated control halves on POSAS total: NAFL treated, median 11, interquartile range (IQR) 9-12 vs. control, median 12, IQR 10-16; P = 0·001. The POSAS subitems showed that the NAFL-treated halves were significantly less red and more pliable, and presented with smoother relief than the untreated controls. VSS total correspondingly revealed enhanced appearance in the NAFL-treated halves: median 2, IQR 1-2·5 vs. control, median 2, IQR 1·75-3, P = 0·007. The standardized assessment comparing appearance of scar halves demonstrated a low degree of correspondence between on-site, photo and patient assessments. NAFL-treated scars were rated as superior to untreated scars by 21 of 29 patients.CONCLUSIONS: NAFL-treated scars showed subtle improvement compared with untreated control scars.

AB - BACKGROUND: In recent years, various lasers have increasingly been applied during wound healing to minimize scar formation. However, no consensus regarding treatment procedures exists.OBJECTIVES: To assess scar formation clinically after three nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) exposures, targeting the inflammation, proliferation and remodelling wound healing phases in patients vs. untreated controls.METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed using a split-wound design to assess excisional wound halves treated with 1540-nm NAFL vs. no laser treatment. Three NAFL exposures were provided: immediately before surgery, at suture removal and 6 weeks after surgery. NAFL exposures were applied using two handpieces, sequentially distributing energy deeply and more superficially in the skin (40-50 mJ per microbeam). Evaluated at 3 months of follow-up, the primary outcome was blinded, on-site evaluation using the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS total; range from 6, normal skin to 60, worst imaginable scar). Secondary outcomes comprised blinded evaluation on the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and standardized assessment comparing scar sides, carried out by blinded on-site, photo and patient assessments. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03253484).RESULTS: Thirty of 32 patients completed the trial. At the 3-month follow-up, the NAFL-treated scar halves showed improvement compared with the untreated control halves on POSAS total: NAFL treated, median 11, interquartile range (IQR) 9-12 vs. control, median 12, IQR 10-16; P = 0·001. The POSAS subitems showed that the NAFL-treated halves were significantly less red and more pliable, and presented with smoother relief than the untreated controls. VSS total correspondingly revealed enhanced appearance in the NAFL-treated halves: median 2, IQR 1-2·5 vs. control, median 2, IQR 1·75-3, P = 0·007. The standardized assessment comparing appearance of scar halves demonstrated a low degree of correspondence between on-site, photo and patient assessments. NAFL-treated scars were rated as superior to untreated scars by 21 of 29 patients.CONCLUSIONS: NAFL-treated scars showed subtle improvement compared with untreated control scars.

U2 - 10.1111/bjd.17076

DO - 10.1111/bjd.17076

M3 - Journal article

VL - 179

SP - 1307

EP - 1314

JO - British Journal of Dermatology

JF - British Journal of Dermatology

SN - 0007-0963

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 56255139