Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40536647›Full record

Trial reportLasers in medical science2025

Effect of CO₂ fractional laser intervention versus hyaluronidase injection in early scar treatment: a randomized controlled study.

Yasser Hashad, Fouad Gharib, Maha Rafie

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. An Overview of the Mechanisms of Fractional COLasers in medical science · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yasser HashadNational Laser Enhanced Sciences, Cairo University, GIZA, Egypt. Yasser.Hashad@outlook.com.
Fouad GharibMenoufia University, Shibīn al Kawm, Egypt.
Maha RafieNational Laser Enhanced Sciences, Cairo University, GIZA, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early intervention for scars is a vital focus in dermatologic surgery, with various treatment options showing potential in enhancing the appearance and texture of scars. This randomized controlled study evaluated the effectiveness of fractional CO₂ laser treatment compared to hyaluronidase injection in managing early scars. Sixty patients with recent scars were randomly assigned to receive either fractional CO₂ laser treatment (n = 30) or hyaluronidase injection (n = 30), with 56 patients completing the study. Treatments were conducted over 4-6 sessions, followed by a 6-month follow-up. The CO₂ laser group showed significantly better results, achieving a 45.3% reduction in scar volume compared to 32.7% in the hyaluronidase group (p < 0.001). Improvements in the Vancouver Scar Scale were also significantly higher in the CO₂ laser group (52.4% ± 15.6% vs. 38.9% ± 14.2%, p < 0.01). Histopathological analysis indicated better collagen organization, improved elastic fiber networks, and lower type I/III collagen ratios in the CO₂ laser group, nearing values typical of normal skin. Both treatments had favorable safety profiles, but the CO₂ laser group needed fewer treatment sessions. These results provide strong evidence that fractional CO₂ laser is a preferred option for early scar management, especially when treatment begins in the third week after scar formation.

Indexed as

CicatrixHyaluronoglucosaminidaseLasers, GasLow-Level Light TherapyAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultHyaluronoglucosaminidaseDermatologic surgeryEarly interventionFractional CO₂ laserHyaluronidase injectionPOSASRandomized controlled trialScar managementScar remodelingVancouver scar scaleWound healing

Identifiers

PMID40536647
PMCPMC12178957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.