Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Prospective, Split-Face Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Non-ablative Fractional Laser for Periorbital Photoaging in Different Age Groups.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Non-ablative Erbium-YAG 2940-nm Fractional Laser Treats Periorbital Static Wrinkles Safely in Fitzpatrick Skin Types III-IV.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 1550 nm and 1565 nm non-ablative fractional lasers (NAFL) have recently been introduced as treatments for periorbital photoaging. This prospective, randomized split-face trial aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of these NAFL treatments in addressing periorbital photoaging in Asian patients across various age groups.
methodsEighteen patients completed the study, with nine under 45 (Group A) and nine aged 45 or older (Group B). Each received three 1550 nm and 1565 nm non-ablative fractional laser treatments at 6-week intervals on the bilateral periorbital area. Comparative photographs were taken, and wrinkle depression scores and volumes were quantified. Patient satisfaction, adverse reactions, and pain scores were also recorded.
resultsSignificant improvement in bilateral periorbital photodamage was observed in patients Group B compared to baseline, while no significant improvement was noted in Group A. Throughout the study, Group B showed a trend of better outcomes in periorbital measurements compared to Group A, with a significant difference in treatment improvement between the two groups. No significant differences were observed between the two laser treatments. Both laser treatments were well tolerated, with limited and transient complications and no long-term adverse effects.
conclusionThe 1550 nm and 1565 nm NAFL treatments are advanced, effective, and safe methods for improving periorbital photoaging, showing superior and more consistent results in middle-aged and elderly patients. There were no significant differences between the two lasers. Patient age is a crucial factor influencing the effectiveness of these treatments, with middle-aged and elderly patients being the optimal candidates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: 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 www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40064643What 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.