ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Comparative Efficacy of Dynamic and Contact Cooling With the Fifth-generation Pulsed Dye Laser for Breast Surgical Scars in Cancer Survivors.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical scars following breast cancer treatment can significantly impact survivors' quality of life. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) therapy has demonstrated efficacy in improving erythematous scars, and epidermal cooling devices are commonly used to enhance treatment safety and comfort. However, no studies have directly compared contact cooling (CC) and dynamic cooling device (DCD) modalities with the fifth-generation PDL. Methods: In this randomized, controlled split-scar trial, 20 female patients with bilateral surgical breast scars underwent 3 PDL treatments (595 nm) at 4-6 week intervals. One side was treated with CC and the other with a DCD. Outcomes were assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, Manchester Scar Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale, optical coherence tomography, and pain scores. Results: Both CC and DCD treatments resulted in statistically significant scar improvement, with no significant difference between modalities in Vancouver Scar Scale, Manchester Scar Scale, or Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scores. Mean pain scores were low (2.6 for CC and 2.3 for DCD; Conclusions: The fifth-generation PDL is effective for treating erythematous breast surgery scars. Both CC and DCD treatments demonstrated equivalent clinical improvement and minimal discomfort, supporting their use as effective and well-tolerated options for the treatment of erythematous surgical scars in breast cancer survivors.
Identifiers
What 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.