CO<sub>2</sub> laser resurfacing for burn and traumatic scars of the hand and upper extremity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Scar formation is a normal part of the proliferative phase in wound healing where collagen is remodelled to better approximate normal skin. When collagen is not effectively redistributed, excessive scarring may occur. Recently, CO 2 laser has emerged as an adjunct in improving scar quality via remodelling and redistribution of dermal collagen fibres. Due to the paucity of literature related to its use in the hands and upper extremities, we created a study to examine its effects on hypertrophic scars focused on the hands and upper extremities. Methods Patients treated with CO 2 laser for hypertrophic scars of the hand and upper extremity were included. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were used to assess the progression of scar quality. Unpaired t-tests were performed to determine statistical difference between pre- and post-treatment scores on each scale. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to understand the relationship between number of treatments and scar quality. Results Of the 90 patients enrolled, 54 patients completed serial scar assessment forms. All patient and observer-reported POSAS domains showed improvement ( P < 0.05) apart from Itching. All VSS domains showed improvement ( P < 0.05). There was moderate correlation between overall patient-reported opinion of scar quality and Discoloration, Stiffness and Thickness, and strong correlation between overall patient opinion and Irregularity (r = 0.715). All observer-reported domains were strongly correlated (r = 7.56–8.74) with overall observer opinion of scar quality. Conclusion The results of this study may further substantiate CO 2 laser as a treatment modality for excessive scarring in a variety of surgical subspecialties. Lay Summary Complex trauma and burns that impact the skin sometimes result in abnormal healing of the skin called, “hypertrophic scarring”. In our study we assessed how using focused CO 2 laser therapy impacts patients and health care provider assessment of wound progression. Our results were based upon patient reported and healthcare provider observations based upon two standardized forms the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). What we found is that after CO 2 Laser Therapy, our 64 patients with 77 treated scars received on average almost 3 treatments and these treatments helped them with physical function and improved aesthetic appearance of their scars. The health care providers also found that the treatments improved functional and aesthetic end points. Overall, our study helps substantiate the body of evidence that using CO 2 laser therapy improves aesthetics and function of hypertrophic scars in the upper extremity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".