Abstract: The Effectiveness of Early Combined Fractional CO2 and Pulsed Dye LASER Treatment after Scar Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Scars are one of the important complications of the wound healing process that cause physical, psychological and cosmetic effect on the patients. Scar revision and laser treatment have been used over the past century for the improvement of many different types of scars. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of early combined carbon dioxide ablative fractional laser (AFL) and the pulsed dye laser (PDL) after scar revision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 14 patients underwent scar revision were enrolled for this study. All patients were treated with combined a 10,600 nm AFL and 595 nm PDL. The laser treatments were performed 2 weeks after scar revision surgery, which is the early remodeling phase, at 4 weeks intervals. Four treatments were performed. Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores were evaluated before treatment and 5 months after final laser treatment. RESULTS: Each VSS scores presented statistically significant improvements except height (Fig. 1). There were no adverse complications such as wound disruption, hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation during the follow up periods. CONCLUSION: This study shows that early combined ablative fractional CO2 and pulse dye laser treatments after scar revision are an effective and safe method to minimize scar formation. DISCLOSURE/FINANCIAL SUPPORT:None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".