Acne Scar Patients Give Thumbs Up to CO2 Laser Treatment

Single treatment with a carbon dioxide fractional laser was as effective for acne scars as a nonablative fractional system, according to results of a randomized split-face study.

Fractional lasers are well tolerated and widely used to treat scarring, but patients often need multiple sessions to achieve clinical improvement, reported Dr. S.B. Cho of Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, Korea, and colleagues.

However, previous studies have shown that carbon dioxide fractional laser systems can improve scars in as few as three treatments.

In this study, the researchers directly compared improvements in acne scarring after half of a patient’s face underwent a single treatment with a nonablative 1550-nm erbium-doped fractional photothermolysis system (FPS) and the other half underwent a single treatment with an ablative 10,600-nm carbon dioxide fractional laser system (CO₂ FS).

The eight patients in the study were Asian males (Fitzpatrick skin type IV) aged 20 to 23 years with mild to severe atrophic acne scars.

At follow-up 3 months after FPS treatment, six of the eight patients showed clinical improvements of 26%-50% from baseline, one patient showed a clinical improvement of 51%-75%, and one showed no clinical improvement (J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2010;24:921-5). As for CO₂ FS results at 3 months, five of the eight patients had a 26%-50% clinical improvement from baseline, two patients had a 51%-75% improvement, and one had an improvement of over 76%.

The level of clinical improvement was not affected by the type of acne scar (boxcar, icepick, or rolling).

The average VAS pain score on a scale of 0, no pain, to 10, severe pain, was significantly higher after the CO₂ FS treatment, compared with the FPS treatment (7.0 vs. 3.9, respectively). However, patient-reported satisfaction was higher after the CO₂ FS treatment. Two patients (25%) were “very satisfied,” four (50%) were “satisfied,” one (12.5%) was “slightly satisfied,” and one (12.5%) was “unsatisfied.” After the FPS treatment, none of the patients were very satisfied, two (25%) were satisfied, five (62.5%) were slightly satisfied, and one (12.5%) was unsatisfied.

Common side effects associated with both treatments included crusting, scaling, and erythema. The average duration of crusting or scaling was significantly longer in the CO₂ FS group, compared with the FPS group (7.4 days vs. 2.3 days, respectively). However, the difference in post-therapy erythema was not significantly different between the two groups (11.5 days vs. 7.5 days, respectively).

“We could not completely eliminate the possibility of subject bias as the participants experienced different posttreatment responses with FPS and CO₂ FS,” the researchers wrote. But the results suggest that a single treatment with CO₂ FS might be more effective than a single treatment with FPS.

Although the findings are not conclusive, given the study’s small size, they could serve as a reference for clinicians choosing among laser options for acne scar treatment, the researchers added.

Dr. Cho and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Single treatment with a carbon dioxide fractional laser was as effective for acne scars as a nonablative fractional system, according to results of a randomized split-face study.

Fractional lasers are well tolerated and widely used to treat scarring, but patients often need multiple sessions to achieve clinical improvement, reported Dr. S.B. Cho of Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, Korea, and colleagues.

However, previous studies have shown that carbon dioxide fractional laser systems can improve scars in as few as three treatments.

In this study, the researchers directly compared improvements in acne scarring after half of a patient’s face underwent a single treatment with a nonablative 1550-nm erbium-doped fractional photothermolysis system (FPS) and the other half underwent a single treatment with an ablative 10,600-nm carbon dioxide fractional laser system (CO₂ FS).

The eight patients in the study were Asian males (Fitzpatrick skin type IV) aged 20 to 23 years with mild to severe atrophic acne scars.

At follow-up 3 months after FPS treatment, six of the eight patients showed clinical improvements of 26%-50% from baseline, one patient showed a clinical improvement of 51%-75%, and one showed no clinical improvement (J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2010;24:921-5). As for CO₂ FS results at 3 months, five of the eight patients had a 26%-50% clinical improvement from baseline, two patients had a 51%-75% improvement, and one had an improvement of over 76%.

The level of clinical improvement was not affected by the type of acne scar (boxcar, icepick, or rolling).

The average VAS pain score on a scale of 0, no pain, to 10, severe pain, was significantly higher after the CO₂ FS treatment, compared with the FPS treatment (7.0 vs. 3.9, respectively). However, patient-reported satisfaction was higher after the CO₂ FS treatment. Two patients (25%) were “very satisfied,” four (50%) were “satisfied,” one (12.5%) was “slightly satisfied,” and one (12.5%) was “unsatisfied.” After the FPS treatment, none of the patients were very satisfied, two (25%) were satisfied, five (62.5%) were slightly satisfied, and one (12.5%) was unsatisfied.

Common side effects associated with both treatments included crusting, scaling, and erythema. The average duration of crusting or scaling was significantly longer in the CO₂ FS group, compared with the FPS group (7.4 days vs. 2.3 days, respectively). However, the difference in post-therapy erythema was not significantly different between the two groups (11.5 days vs. 7.5 days, respectively).

“We could not completely eliminate the possibility of subject bias as the participants experienced different posttreatment responses with FPS and CO₂ FS,” the researchers wrote. But the results suggest that a single treatment with CO₂ FS might be more effective than a single treatment with FPS.

Although the findings are not conclusive, given the study’s small size, they could serve as a reference for clinicians choosing among laser options for acne scar treatment, the researchers added.

Dr. Cho and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Single treatment with a carbon dioxide fractional laser was as effective for acne scars as a nonablative fractional system, according to results of a randomized split-face study.

Fractional lasers are well tolerated and widely used to treat scarring, but patients often need multiple sessions to achieve clinical improvement, reported Dr. S.B. Cho of Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, Korea, and colleagues.

However, previous studies have shown that carbon dioxide fractional laser systems can improve scars in as few as three treatments.

In this study, the researchers directly compared improvements in acne scarring after half of a patient’s face underwent a single treatment with a nonablative 1550-nm erbium-doped fractional photothermolysis system (FPS) and the other half underwent a single treatment with an ablative 10,600-nm carbon dioxide fractional laser system (CO₂ FS).

The eight patients in the study were Asian males (Fitzpatrick skin type IV) aged 20 to 23 years with mild to severe atrophic acne scars.

At follow-up 3 months after FPS treatment, six of the eight patients showed clinical improvements of 26%-50% from baseline, one patient showed a clinical improvement of 51%-75%, and one showed no clinical improvement (J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2010;24:921-5). As for CO₂ FS results at 3 months, five of the eight patients had a 26%-50% clinical improvement from baseline, two patients had a 51%-75% improvement, and one had an improvement of over 76%.

The level of clinical improvement was not affected by the type of acne scar (boxcar, icepick, or rolling).

The average VAS pain score on a scale of 0, no pain, to 10, severe pain, was significantly higher after the CO₂ FS treatment, compared with the FPS treatment (7.0 vs. 3.9, respectively). However, patient-reported satisfaction was higher after the CO₂ FS treatment. Two patients (25%) were “very satisfied,” four (50%) were “satisfied,” one (12.5%) was “slightly satisfied,” and one (12.5%) was “unsatisfied.” After the FPS treatment, none of the patients were very satisfied, two (25%) were satisfied, five (62.5%) were slightly satisfied, and one (12.5%) was unsatisfied.

Common side effects associated with both treatments included crusting, scaling, and erythema. The average duration of crusting or scaling was significantly longer in the CO₂ FS group, compared with the FPS group (7.4 days vs. 2.3 days, respectively). However, the difference in post-therapy erythema was not significantly different between the two groups (11.5 days vs. 7.5 days, respectively).

“We could not completely eliminate the possibility of subject bias as the participants experienced different posttreatment responses with FPS and CO₂ FS,” the researchers wrote. But the results suggest that a single treatment with CO₂ FS might be more effective than a single treatment with FPS.

Although the findings are not conclusive, given the study’s small size, they could serve as a reference for clinicians choosing among laser options for acne scar treatment, the researchers added.

Dr. Cho and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.