112 Improvements in Burn Hypertrophic Scar After Fractional Ablative Laser Scar Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Fractional ablative laser therapy use is increasing for treating burn hypertrophic scar (HTS). However, standard components of a routine HTS evaluation prior to starting laser scar revision (LSR) and after each intervention have yet to be determined, and metrics for effective treatment have not been established. Methods Patients who entered a LSR program between September 2018 and September 2019, underwent at least two LSR treatments, and completed post-LSR scar evaluations for each of these treatments were included in the studied sample. Patients were treated with a fractional ablative CO2 laser. A single burn rehabilitation therapist conducted all pre- and post-procedure scar evaluations, which included the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Institutional Scar Comparison Scale (SCS), durometry, and active range of motion (AROM) measurements. Results From 9/2018 to 9/2019, 25 patients began the LSR program and underwent at least two treatments with post-laser scar assessments for each intervention. Patients underwent an average of 3±1 LSR sessions during the time period for a total of 84 sessions amongst the group. Patients averaged 51±14 years old (range 26–80), with all Fitzpatrick skin types represented (mode type 5). Average HTS age was 14±19 months post-injury (range 3–98 months post injury). After one session of LSR, 91% of patients improved in at least one scar assessment metric (average 3±1.4 areas). After two sessions, all patients showed improvement in at least one metric (average 3.6±1.2 areas). One LSR session was associated with a 10.8±31.9% improvement in AROM of a HTS-affected joint, and this increased to 38.1±41.4% after five LSR treatments (p=0.0002). Durometry readings demonstrated decreasing scar hardness compared to adjacent uninjured skin in 90% of patients, and 96% of patients experienced improvements in POSAS, VSS, and SCS scores during a treatment course. Conclusions Improvements in burn HTS can be achieved with fractional ablative laser therapy in a wide range of scar ages and skin types, as early as the first LSR session. These continue to increase as additional sessions are performed. Applicability of Research to Practice This work suggests necessary baseline evaluation components for patients undergoing LSR, as well as a timeline for expected clinical improvements. This data may inform conversations with burn survivors and providers when considering laser therapy for symptomatic HTS.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".