ReviewLasers in surgery and medicine2025
Expert Consensus on Clinical Recommendations for Fractional Ablative CO
Review in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing fractional CO₂ laser and needling-based modalities in facial acne scar treatment: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Compound Lidocaine Cream and Lidocaine-Prilocaine Cream for Pain Management in Facial Rejuvenation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Trial
- Safety and Tolerability of Fractional COJournal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Round Table Discussion: Aesthetic Treatment Considerations for the Perimenopausal & Menopausal Patient.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Review
- Insulin Resistance as a Potential Predictor of Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation After COClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Photothermolysis with 1550 nm Fractional Laser Promotes Regeneration of Gingival Mucosa.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Importance of Using Sunscreen After Light or Laser Facial Treatment: A Literature Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Suture Materials: Conventional and Stimulatory-Responsive Absorbable Polymers with Biomimetic Function.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Expert Consensus on Ocular Safety During Laser Procedures: A Practical Guide to Eye Safety by a Panel of Dermatologist Laser Surgeons and Ophthalmologists.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor three decades, fractional ablative CO
objectiveTo develop up-to-date clinical recommendations on safety measures, therapeutic framework, and techniques to improve treatment outcomes.
methodsUsing Google Forms, a questionnaire with 188 questions was given to a varied sample of 21 dermatologists and plastic surgeons from various countries and practice contexts. A second questionnaire with 11 items was created to resolve any gaps or discrepancies.
resultsActive face infections are considered a treatment contraindication by 95% of panelists. Burns, recent sun exposure, and pregnancy or breastfeeding were also considered contraindications (according to 67% of panelists). Over 90% employ bacterial and viral prophylaxis, however the majority (67%) do not prescribe antifungal prophylaxis. The most often stated anesthetic treatments by panelists are topical anesthetic cream, nerve blocks, and oral analgesics (according to 95%, 81%, and 62% of panelists respectively). Over 90% of panel members suggested treatment setting alterations for individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV. Following reepithelization, which happens between 8 and 42 days after the treatment, the majority (76%) of panelists advocate continuing standard skin care routines including active ingredients. Eighty-one percent of panelists recommend using supplementary treatment to maximize results. Supplementary treatment recommendations included use of neuromodulators (76% of panelists), Intense Pulsed Light Therapy treatments pre and postprocedure (61% of panelists), and injection-based therapies such as (Hyaluronic Acid fillers, and biostimulatory fillers) (recommended by 48% of panelists). 60% of panelists perform FACL to improve skin laxity treatment in nonfacial areas and adjust their settings accordingly. LIMITATIONS: Our results reflect only a modest panel size; with a focus on a specific device. Although experienced, the small number of panelists, recommendations, and personal adverse reactions encounters for resurfacing indication, might be biased.
conclusionFractional CO
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.