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.

Scar formation is a common outcome of tissue injury, manifesting as atrophic, hypertrophic, and keloid scars, which can significantly impact quality of life. Laser therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality for scars, encompassing ablative and non-ablative approaches, yet there are gaps in understanding their comparative efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. This study aims to comprehensively review published research comparing the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of various laser therapies for treating atrophic, hypertrophic, and keloid scars. A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, involving comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for human comparative clinical trials published in English from January 2010 to February 2024. Studies were included if they compared two or more laser types for the treatment of scars. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Out of 5951 records retrieved, 39 studies involving 1262 participants were included. The majority focused on atrophic scars (48.7%), with treatment typically consisting of three sessions at four-week intervals. Results indicated that ablative lasers, particularly CO2 and Er: YAG, were more effective for atrophic scars but associated with higher pain and downtime. For hypertrophic and keloid scars, both ablative and non-ablative lasers yielded comparable results, especially in combination therapies. Notably, patient skin type influenced treatment choice due to the risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. Laser therapy is effective for various scar types, with ablative lasers preferred for atrophic scars, albeit with increased pain and downtime. Both laser types are effective for hypertrophic and keloid scars, and combination treatments can enhance outcomes. Personalized treatment approaches considering skin type are essential to minimize adverse effects. Further research is warranted to refine laser parameters and assess long-term efficacy and patient satisfaction. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?: • Scar formation is a common outcome of the wound healing process, resulting in various scar types, including atrophic, hypertrophic, and keloid scars. These scars can significantly reduce the quality of life for affected individuals. • Laser therapy has emerged as a developed technology for scar treatment, utilizing heat and light for coagulation and tissue reconstruction. Laser modalities are primarily categorized into ablative (e.g., CO2 and Er: YAG lasers) and non-ablative types, each targeting different scar characteristics. • Despite advancements, significant gaps exist in knowledge regarding the long-term efficacy of laser treatments, pain management, and overall patient satisfaction. Critical factors influencing treatment outcomes include the timing of therapy initiation, the type of laser used, and the intervals between treatments. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: • A total of 1262 participants were included in the studies, with 54.6% being females. The majority of studies focused on atrophic scars (64.1%), particularly acne scars (48.7%), while studies on hypertrophic and keloid scars accounted for 35.9% of the included. • Scar improvement was assessed using standard existing scoring scales in 67.7% of cases, with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) being used to measure pain in 57.1% of studies. Treatment protocols typically consisted of 3 sessions at 4-week intervals, with follow-up visits scheduled 1 to 6 months after the final treatment session. • In a comparison of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser versus the Long-pulse 1064 nm Nd: YAG laser for treating acne scars, 52.3% of patients treated with the Er: YAG laser experienced improvement, while only 25% of patients treated with the Nd: YAG laser reported similar results. • In a study comparing ablative 10600 nm fx CO2 lasers with nonablative 1550 nm Er: glass lasers for treating acne scars, over 50% recovery was achieved in 37.5% of patients treated with the fx CO2 laser, while only 12.5% of patients had similar recovery with the non-ablative 1550 nm Er: glass laser. • In a comparison of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser with the Fractional CO2 laser for treating acne scars, the fx CO2 laser achieved an improvement of over 50% in 65% of patients, while the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser demonstrated improvement in 55% of patients, with no statistically significant difference between the two (p > 0.05). • In a study comparing the 1064 nm Nd: YAG laser with a diffractive optical element to the non-ablative 1550 nm Er: glass laser for atrophic acne scars, the Nd: YAG laser group demonstrated a 55% improvement in the ECCA criterion, while the Er: glass laser group showed a 42% improvement. • In a comparison between the 1550 nm Er: fiber laser and the 755 nm Picosecond laser for treating atrophic acne scars, 73.91% of patients who received the 1550 nm Er: fiber laser experienced a 26%-50% improvement, while all patients treated with the 755 nm Picosecond laser showed only a 1%-25% improvement, indicating significantly greater effectiveness of the Er: fiber laser (P < 0.05). • In a study comparing the 10600 nm fx CO2 laser and the 1550 nm Er: glass laser for treating hypertrophic scars, the mean improvement was 2.35 ± 0.85 for the Er: glass group and 2.45 ± 0.99 for the fx CO2 group over a three-month period, indicating no statistically significant difference between the two (p > 0.05). • A study assessing the effectiveness of the CO2 laser, Nd: YAG 1064-nm laser, and their combination for treating hypertrophic scars reported recovery rates of 47.33% for the CO2 laser, 41.19% for the Nd: YAG laser, and 44.92% for the combination group, with no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). • In a comparative study of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser versus the 1550 nm Er: glass laser for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars, 85.7% of patients reported a better overall appearance in the areas treated with the Er: YAG laser, and 71.4% noted an improved cosmetic appearance in that area compared to the opposite site. • In a comparative study evaluating the effectiveness of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser versus the Fractional CO2 laser for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars, the first study showed a 49.8% reduction in the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) for the fx CO2 group compared to 28.2% for the Er: YAG group, with this difference being statistically significant; however, a second study found no significant difference between the two lasers over three months. • In a study comparing the 532 nm potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser with the 595 nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) over a 12-week period, the median improvement score for the KTP laser group was 2, while the PDL group had a score of 1.5; however, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. • In a comparative study of the pulsed dye laser (PDL) and the 1064 nm Nd: YAG laser for treatinghypertrophic scars and keloids, the recovery rate for the Nd: YAG group was 65.44%, whereas the PDL group had a recovery rate of 55.14%. While both groups showed significant improvement, no notable difference was observed between the two treatments.