Improvement of Surgical Scars by Early Intervention With Carbon Dioxide Fractional Laser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives Laser therapy during the early stage of wound healing can reduce surgical scar formation. Previous clinical trials showed that ablative fractional laser (AFL) therapy might have achieved the best outcomes; however, there was no consensus on the laser therapy protocol. The current study investigated the efficacy of early intervention with carbon dioxide FL (CO2 FL) in reducing the surgical scars in patients of all age groups to understand the effects of specific intervention timing, light dose, number of treatments, treatment interval on the therapeutic outcome, and side effects. Study Design/Materials and Methods Within 1 week after suture removal, 18 patients received low‐energy CO2 FL therapy on their incisional wounds from facial or neck surgery. The treatments were performed once every 3 months for 1–3 sessions. After the surgical treatment, we applied a topical gel that contained recombinant human epidermal growth factor (EGF) on the incisional wounds to facilitate wound healing. The outcomes were evaluated by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and a satisfaction survey (the quartile grading scale) before and 3 months after completing the therapy was conducted. During the same period, 15 patients who had not received any treatment for about one year after face and neck surgery were randomly selected as the untreated control group. Results In the treatment group, 18 patients had no obvious scar marks after the laser therapy. The satisfaction survey showed excellent outcomes in 16 (88.9%) patients and good outcomes in two (11.1%). After treatment, the average VSS scale and satisfaction score of the treatment group were 1.11 and 3.89, respectively; while the average VSS scale of the control group was 3.07 and the satisfaction score was 1.93. There were significant differences in VSS scale and satisfaction score between the treatment group and the control group (P < 0.01). No adverse effects were observed. Conclusions Early intervention with CO2 FL on surgical wounds achieved satisfactory outcomes in improving the surgical scars. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".