648 Direct Comparison of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Lasers Systems: Ablative Well Properties and Healing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Ablative lasers are a common tool for burn scar remodeling with numerous commercially available systems, each with varying capabilities. Among fractional CO2 (FXCO2) laser systems, the same nomenclature is utilized to describe properties of the laser including beam fluence and fractional coverage. Despite identical laser settings for these properties, the outcomes in two patient cohorts utilizing two different FXCO2 laser systems were notably different. As a result, a direct comparison of ablative wells, fractional coverage and healing between the two systems was conducted using ex-vivo and porcine models. Methods An ex-vivo study comparing fractional coverage settings (1%, 3%, and 5%) between the two different FXCO2 laser systems was first carried out (all measurements were obtained by a blinded rater using a high-powered microscope to quantify ablative area). Porcine skin was then treated with the two systems at 10–70 mJ. To compare ablative well properties, biopsies were collected and serial sectioned with the deepest/widest point of each well calculated from the histological section using ImageJ. Fractional coverage for each laser system was quantified for three different settings: 70 mJ 1%, 70 mJ 5%, and 30 mJ 5%. Finally, re-epithelialization rate (as measured by transepidermal water loss), erythema and expression of genes encoding inflammatory cytokines were quantified in a porcine burn model prior to and at multiple time points following treatment with both laser systems (70 mJ, 5% fractional coverage). Results The two laser systems produced significantly different ablative wells. In the ex-vivo study, the fractional coverage measurements obtained differed from those provided by the manufacturer by 1.6 - 8.9%. In the porcine study, at 70 mJ, the ablative wells created from system 1 were deep and narrow, on average 1251 + 183 µm deep and 142 + 32 µm wide whereas wells from system 2 were shallow and wide, 374 + 44 µm deep and 267 + 35 µm wide. Following treatment, scars treated with system 2 re-established barrier function within 7 days whereas scars treated with system 1 re-established within 4 days. A significant increase in gene expression for IL-6 was observed in both systems at 1-hour post laser. Expression levels returned to baseline in system 2 by 24 hours whereas a return to baseline was not observed until the 96-hour time point for system 2. Conclusions While different FXCO2 laser systems utilize the same nomenclature for user selected properties, the same settings are not equivalent between systems resulting in significantly different ablative wells and downstream healing. Applicability of Research to Practice Laser systems should not be considered interchangeable despite being programmed for the same settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».