ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Does Earlier Laser Intervention for Post-Surgery Scars Yield Superior Outcomes?
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of CO
methodsSix New Zealand white rabbits were used in this study. Six surgical incisions were made on the ventral side of each rabbit's ear and randomly divided into six groups: Group A (non-laser intervention group), Group B (the day of surgery laser intervention group), Group C (1 week post-surgery laser intervention group), Group D (2 weeks post-surgery laser intervention group), Group E (3 weeks post-surgery laser intervention group), Group F (4 weeks post-surgery laser intervention group). At week 7 post-surgery, Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) scores were recorded. Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining was employed to measure dermal thickness, while Masson staining was utilized to determine the collagen volume fraction. Additionally, microvascular density was evaluated via CD31 immunohistochemistry. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess overall differences among the groups. Where significant differences were found, the least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test was employed for pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance was determined at a threshold of P< 0.05.
resultsAt week 7 post-surgery, macroscopic observation revealed that Group A (non-laser intervention group) exhibited the most pronounced linear scars. In contrast, Groups B to F, which underwent laser intervention, displayed only partial linear scars. The SCAR scores, dermal thickness, collagen volume fraction, and microvascular density in Group A were all significantly higher than those in the laser intervention groups (Groups B-F) (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were observed among the laser intervention groups (Groups B-F) for any of these parameters (P > 0.05).
conclusionsCO NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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
42151609What 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.