文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

1550nm 非剥脱性点阵激光与 10600nm 剥脱性点阵激光治疗手术和外伤性瘢痕的疗效和治疗方案比较研究。

1550-nm Nonablative Fractional Laser Versus 10,600-nm Ablative Fractional Laser in the Treatment of Surgical and Traumatic Scars: A Comparison Study on Efficacy and Treatment Regimen.

机构信息

Medical Dermatology Associates of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Department of Dermatology, Iowa City, Iowa.

出版信息

Dermatol Surg. 2020 Jun;46(6):780-788. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000002152.


DOI:10.1097/DSS.0000000000002152
PMID:31567609
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The appearance and symptoms of scars can cause significant distress to patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare efficacy of the 1,500-nm nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) and 10,600-nm ablative fractional laser (AFL) in reducing symptoms and improving the appearance of traumatic or surgical scars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-center prospective, randomized, blinded, split-scar study was conducted on 100 patients with a scar obtained through trauma or surgery. Three treatments of NAFL or AFL were administered to each half of the scar at 4-week intervals. Scars were self-rated by the patient using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and a satisfaction score and objectively evaluated by blinded dermatologists using the Manchester Scar Scale and visual analog scale. RESULTS: Blinded observers found no statistically significant difference in scar appearance. Patient rating showed improvement of scar appearance (p < .0001). Pain was worse after treatment with AFL (p = .0492). Overall, there was no statistically significant evidence of one laser being superior or inferior to the other for patient and blinded observer scores (p = .3173 and p = .2513, respectively). CONCLUSION: Scar treatment with AFL or NAFL is associated with high patient satisfaction. Objective evaluation of scars did not identify improvement in scar appearance.

摘要

背景:疤痕的外观和症状会给患者带来明显的困扰。

目的:评估和比较 1500nm 非剥脱性点阵激光(NAFL)和 10600nm 剥脱性点阵激光(AFL)治疗外伤性或手术性疤痕的疗效,以减轻症状和改善外观。

材料与方法:对 100 名因创伤或手术导致的疤痕患者进行了一项单中心前瞻性、随机、双盲、分割性疤痕研究。每半个疤痕接受 3 次 NAFL 或 AFL 治疗,间隔 4 周。患者使用患者和观察者疤痕评估量表(POSAS)和满意度评分自评疤痕,由盲法皮肤科医生使用曼彻斯特疤痕量表(MSS)和视觉模拟评分(VAS)进行客观评估。

结果:盲法观察者发现疤痕外观无统计学显著差异。患者评分显示疤痕外观改善(p <.0001)。AFL 治疗后疼痛更严重(p =.0492)。总体而言,在患者和盲法观察者评分方面,没有统计学证据表明一种激光优于另一种(p =.3173 和 p =.2513)。

结论:AFL 或 NAFL 治疗疤痕可获得较高的患者满意度。对疤痕的客观评估并未发现外观改善。

相似文献

[1]
1550-nm Nonablative Fractional Laser Versus 10,600-nm Ablative Fractional Laser in the Treatment of Surgical and Traumatic Scars: A Comparison Study on Efficacy and Treatment Regimen.

Dermatol Surg. 2020-6

[2]
Laser treatments in early wound healing improve scar appearance: a randomized split-wound trial with nonablative fractional laser exposures vs. untreated controls.

Br J Dermatol. 2018-9-30

[3]
Comparison of 1565-nm Nonablative Fractional Laser and 10600-nm Ablative Fractional Laser in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Atrophic Acne Scars.

Dermatol Surg. 2021-3-1

[4]
Comparison of non-ablative and ablative fractional laser treatments in a postoperative scar study.

Lasers Surg Med. 2014-12

[5]
Efficacy of Combined Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) With Fractional CO -Laser Ablation in the Treatment of Large Hypertrophic Scars: A Prospective, Randomized Control Trial.

Lasers Surg Med. 2019-10

[6]
Early postoperative single treatment ablative fractional lasing of Mohs micrographic surgery facial scars: a split-scar, evaluator-blinded study.

Lasers Surg Med. 2015-1

[7]
Non-ablative fractional laser provides long-term improvement of mature burn scars--a randomized controlled trial with histological assessment.

Lasers Surg Med. 2015-2

[8]
Early intervention with non-ablative fractional laser to improve cutaneous scarring-A randomized controlled trial on the impact of intervention time and fluence levels.

Lasers Surg Med. 2018-1

[9]
Fractionated Er:YAG laser versus fully ablative Er:YAG laser for scar revision: Results of a split scar, double blinded, prospective trial.

Lasers Surg Med. 2016-11

[10]
Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars: Resurfacing and fractional lasers.

J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016-4

引用本文的文献

[1]
Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of a Panthenol-Enriched Mask for Skin Barrier Recovery After Facial Laser Treatment: Results of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study.

J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025-7

[2]
A systematic review of comparative clinical trials on the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of ablative and non-ablative laser therapies for atrophic, hypertrophic, and keloid scars.

Lasers Med Sci. 2025-6-14

[3]
Efficacy and safety of phototherapies for upper lip scars in cleft lip patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Int J Surg. 2025-1-1

[4]
Keloid and Hypertrophic Scars Treatment.

Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024-7

[5]
Effects of multiple modes of UltraPulse fractional CO laser treatment on extensive scarring: a retrospective study.

Lasers Med Sci. 2022-4

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索