ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Pulsed Dye Laser Versus Intense Pulse Light in the Early Intervention of Surgical Scars: A Retrospective Study.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulse dye laser (PDL) and intense pulse light (IPL) have been applied in the early scar treatment to alleviate erythema, but no comparative analysis has been conducted to evaluate the performance of the two. This is a retrospective comparative study to assess whether PDL and IPL had the same efficacy in the early intervention of surgical linear scars.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study on linear surgical scars which received two consecutive monthly sessions of PDL (n = 50) or IPL (n = 68) from January 2017 to December 2023. All interventions were initiated two weeks after the suture removal. Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), the incidence of hypertrophic scars and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) were measured at baseline and one month after the last treatment. Subgroup analysis was further performed on scars located in the face, neck and trunk.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the downregulation rate of VSS between PDL (36.6%±30.0%) and IPL (44.5%±33.3%) (P = 0.19). The incidence of hypertrophic scars was not significantly different between PDL (10%) and IPL (7.6%) (P = 0.61). There was no difference in GAIS (3.2±0.8 for PDL, 3.0±0.6 for IPL, P = 0.18). The subgroup analysis showed that the downregulation rate of VSS had statistical difference in the face (45.8%±29.1%), neck (10.4%±39.7%) and trunk (30.1%±31.9%) (P < 0.01).
conclusionPDL and IPL did not demonstrate notable difference in efficacy in the early intervention of surgical scars. Neither modality could prevent scar hypertrophy entirely. Anatomical locations of the scars correlated with the treatment outcome. Since this was a retrospective study with limited follow-up span, further validation is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
42310084What 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.