Combination of ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser and platelet-rich plasma treatment to improve hypertrophic scars: a retrospective clinical observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hypertrophic scars are one of the main complications that affect the quality of life of patients after burns. Many methods have been shown to be effective in the treatment of hypertrophic scars, such as ablative fractional CO2 laser (AFCL) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, there are few studies on the effect of the combined application of these measures. The purpose of this study was to explore the therapeutic effect of AFCL combined with PRP on hypertrophic burn scars. Methods A retrospective clinical observation study was conducted on 50 patients with hypertrophic burn scars. The AFCL+PRP group included 31 patients who received AFCL combined with PRP treatment; the AFCL group included 19 patients who received AFCL treatment only. The University of North Carolina 4P Scar Scale (UNC4P) and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores that were collected before each treatment were used as indicators of the effectiveness of the previous treatment. The scores recorded at the second, fourth and seventh months were analysed. Results The demographic data of the 2 groups were not significantly different. Before treatment, there was no difference in the UNC4P and VSS scores between the 2 groups. There was a significant decline in the UNC4P and VSS total scores over 6 months in both groups (p < 0.05) and scores in the 2 groups were comparable after 3 and 6 months (p < 0.05). UNC4P scores in the AFCL+PRP group decreased from a mean of 8.26 to 2.61 (p < 0.05) with a concomitant drop in VSS scores from a mean of 11.74 to 6.06 (p < 0.01). In the AFCL group UNC4P and VSS scores decreased from 7.68 to 4.63 (p < 0.05) and from 10.89 to 8.16 (p < 0.05), respectively. The sub-items of these 2 assessments were analysed and the results suggest that AFCL combined with PRP can comprehensively improve scarring. Conclusions This study shows that PRP is an effective adjunct for AFCL in the treatment of hypertrophic burn scars and that the combination of PRP and AFCL proved to be more useful than AFCL alone. This combination may be a new and effective clinical practice for the treatment of scars. However, larger and higher-level clinical studies are still needed to determine its efficacy and possible mechanisms.
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".