Comparison of Nd:YAG Laser and Combined Intense Pulsed Light and Radiofrequency in the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypertrophic scars are fibroproliferative disorders, seen after burn, trauma, and/or surgery. We aimed to compare the clinical and histopathological results of 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser and combined intense pulsed light and radiofrequency in the treatment of hypertrophic scars. METHODS: Fifty patients with hypertrophic scars were included in this prospective, randomized study. Twenty-five patients were treated with Nd:YAG laser and 25 patients with combined intense pulsed light and radiofrequency (E-light). The scars were evaluated at baseline, during and at 3 months after the final treatment session using the Vancouver scar scale. Biopsy specimens from scars were obtained before, during, and 3 months after the final treatment session and were stained with hematoxylin and eosin stain, Masson's trichrome stain, and immunostaining procedures for collagen I, collagen III, and TGF-β1. RESULTS: Significant improvements in the total Vancouver scar scale scores before and after the treatment in both groups (P < 0.001); however, a significant difference between both groups (P < 0.001), regarding the E-light, which showed better response than Nd:YAG laser. Hematoxylin and eosin and Masson's trichrome staining showed arrangement and thinning of collagen bundles and reduction in collagen density by in both groups, but the collagen bundles thinning and parallelism were more obvious in the E-light group. Significant decrease in the concentration of collagen I, collagen III, and TGF-β1 in the E-light group as compared with the laser group (P = 0.005, P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both modalities were successful in the treatment of hypertrophic scars; however, a significant improvement in the clinical and histopathological findings was detected with the E-light method.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".