Patient- and Physician-Reported Outcome of Combined Fractional CO2 and Pulse Dye Laser Treatment for Hypertrophic Scars in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic scars are commonly seen in children and associated with pruritus, pain, functional impairment, and aesthetic disfigurement. Ablative fractional CO2 and pulse dye laser are emerging techniques to improve scar quality. Only limited data are available on children, nonburn scars, and patient-reported outcome. We aimed to investigate safety and outcome of repeated laser therapy for hypertrophic scars originating from burns and other conditions by means of patient- and physician-reported outcome measures. METHODS: This was a retrospective before-after analysis of laser treatments in children with hypertrophic scars. Outcome was measured using Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Vancouver Scar Scale and Itch Man Scale. With respect to safety, laser- and anesthesia-related complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen patients, aged 11.37 ± 4.82 years with 27 scars, underwent 102 distinct laser treatments, mainly combined CO2 and pulse dye laser (94%), with few CO2 only (6%). Vancouver Scar Scale total score before the first and after the first session decreased significantly from 7.65 ± 2.12 to 4.88 ± 1.73; Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale observer overall opinion also dropped from 5.88 ± 1.57 to 4.25 ± 1.70. Pruritus improved significantly. Patient age and timing of laser intervention did not have an impact on treatment response. Complications related to laser treatment were seen in 2% (wound infection, n = 2) and to anesthesia in 4% (insignificant n = 2, minor n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Combined laser therapy significantly improves quality, pain, and pruritus of hypertrophic scars in children. When provided by experienced laser and anesthesia teams, it is safe with a low rate of complications.
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".