ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
The Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between General and Topical Anesthesia on Micro-Plasma Radiofrequency Treatment for Hypertrophic Scar: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile micro-plasma radiofrequency (MPR) treatment has a significant impact on hypertrophic scars, patients often require anesthesia to alleviate substantial discomfort. Currently, patients with similar degrees of scarring may choose surface anesthesia or general anesthesia based on their personal preferences. Nevertheless, the effectiveness and safety of different anesthesia modalities remain uncertain.
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of both general and surface anesthesia in MPR treatment for hypertrophic scars.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 101 patients diagnosed with hypertrophic scars who underwent MPR with different anesthesia methods. The primary measures of efficacy included the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores assessed before the first treatment and six months after the final treatment. Pain relief was evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores. Safety was assessed by comparing the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups.
resultsPatients in the general anesthesia group showed a significant difference in scar pigmentation 6 months after the treatment and lower pain level than those in the surface anesthesia group in the treatment of MPR. The difference in safety was not statistically significant. After adjusting for confounding factors and propensity score matching, the outcome of VSS and VAS scores was stable.
conclusionGeneral anesthesia, as opposed to surface anesthesia, appears to enhance both the effectiveness and safety of MPR while reducing postoperative pain in the treatment of hypertrophic scars. For patients with heightened pain sensitivity, general anesthesia may be the preferred treatment option. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.