66 Laser Treatments for Burn Scars - 6 year Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After showing efficacy of fractional photothermolysis in improving physiologic function in burn scars in 2012, we have treated adult and pediatric patients with burn scars on a regular basis. Safety and morbidity of these treatments in large patient series have not sufficiently been documented. 1876 fractional ablative and non-ablative laser treatments were studied in form of a retrospective chart review. Complications of the treatment itself and of the anesthesia associated with treatments, as well as the frequency of treatments, the energy applied per cm2, the size of the scars treated in each session and the Vancouver and POSAS scales were documented. 414 patients, 238 male and 176 female, 308 adults, 106 children, were included. See table 1 for demographics. All patients had received the standard scar treatments prior to laser. A total of 1876, 1116 ablative fractional and 652 non-ablative fractional laser treatments were performed and 108 other (IPL, Q-switched).The average size of scar treated was 565 cm2 in each session. The average energy applied per cm2 was 6.5 Joule. The median time between wound healing and first laser treatment was 150 days. 4 treatments were performed on each patient on average (8 weeks apart). Deep sedation/anesthesia was used in 1207 treatments, local anesthesia was used in 535 treatments and no anesthesia was used in 134 treatments (mostly IPL). There were 26 (2.1%) anesthesia complications, nausea and prolonged recovery. No serious anesthesia complication was reported. 26 (1.38%) post treatment complications were reported, 12 blister formations, 1 open area (non-ablative laser), 13 prolonged itching, none of which required further intervention. The average initial Vancouver scar scale (VSS) was 10.16, POSAS was 36.66. The available final VSS improvement was 1.4points, POSAS was 15.5 points Fractional laser treatments for hypertrophic and symptomatic burn scars are safe and effective in the adult and pediatric population, independent of skin type.The most common complication was nausea post anesthesia. There were no post-laser infections or skin rashes noted in our study population. Applicability of Research to Practice: Immediate Patient demographics
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".