Intense pulsed light versus cryotherapy in the treatment of hypertrophic scars: A clinical and histopathological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different therapeutic modalities have been tried for hypertrophic scar treatment. To our knowledge, intense pulsed light (IPL) has not been previously evaluated in comparison with cryotherapy as a stand-alone treatment for hypertrophic scars. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IPL as a monotherapy for hypertrophic scar treatment as compared with cryotherapy both clinically and histopathologically. METHODS: This study included 28 patients with hypertrophic scars. Patients were divided randomly and equally into two groups; group I patients received cryotherapy while group II patients received IPL. All patients received treatments for a total of six sessions or until resolution of the lesion whichever was nearer. The outcome was evaluated clinically and histopathologically. RESULTS: Scar height showed a significant decrease and scar color and pliability showed a significant improvement in group I. No significant changes were detected in group II except in scar pliability. Vancouver scar scale (VSS) mean decreased by -53.7% in group I versus -11.5% decrease in group II. Histopathologically, group I showed a significantly increased epidermal thickness and decreased dermal and collagen bundle thickness, while group II showed insignificant histopathological changes. Group I exhibited a statistically significant clinical and histopathological improvement compared to group II, yet with more complications. CONCLUSION: Cryotherapy is more effective than IPL in the treatment of hypertrophic scars both on clinical and histopathological level yet with more 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".