Early postoperative single treatment ablative fractional lasing of Mohs micrographic surgery facial scars: A split‐scar, evaluator‐blinded study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Despite precise surgical technique, some postoperative facial scars will depress and widen over time, likely due to weakened or inadequately replaced collagen fibers in the underlying dermis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a 10,600 nm ablative carbon dioxide (CO2 ) fractional laser used early in the post-surgical setting results in improved postoperative facial scars after a single treatment session. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized, comparative split-scar study was conducted on 20 subjects between the ages of 20-90. Subjects underwent Mohs surgery for nonmelanoma skin cancer of the face. Subsequent to tumor removal, subjects with a linear scar of 4 cm or greater were enrolled. On the day of suture removal, all subjects had one-half of their scar randomly selected and treated with a 10,600 nm CO2 fractional laser (energy = 10 mJ; density = 10%; spot size = 7 mm; pulse = 1). The untreated scar half served as a control. Scars were re-evaluated 12 weeks later. An independent blinded observer graded the scar halves with the Vancouver scar scale (VSS) immediately prior to treatment and 12 weeks after treatment. Subjects completed a visual analog scale (VAS) at the same time points. RESULTS: Three months after laser treatment, a significant decrease in VSS and 3 of the 4 of its individual parameters were detected in both control and treated halves of the scar. When comparing the laser group versus the control group, a statistically significant difference was not noted in VSS (P = 0.31) but a statistically significant difference in patient VAS was detected (P = 0.002). No side effects of the laser treatment were noted. CONCLUSION: Facial wounds sutured in a layered manner heal well. Patients prefer early fractional CO2 lasing of surgical scars, though use of the VSS failed to detect an objective difference between laser and control halves of scars. Conservative laser settings, a single session treatment, and VSS insensitivity for surgical scars may influence these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".