The Effectiveness of Laser Therapy for Hypertrophic Burn Scars in Pediatric Patients: A Prospective Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser therapy has become a valuable treatment option for hypertrophic burn scars. Improvements in scar symptoms have been achieved using the ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser as well as the pulsed dye laser. However, research regarding the use of laser therapy among pediatric patients remains limited. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of using laser therapy to improve hypertrophic burn scars in a pediatric population using a comprehensive scar assessment protocol. A pragmatic, single-center, prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Twenty participants with hypertrophic burn scars were included. Laser procedures were administered at approximately two month intervals and scars were evaluated at five time points over one year using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, conventional ultrasound, ultrasound elastography, and a multi-probe skin analysis device. Seventy-one laser procedures were performed with most participants receiving treatment with both the ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser and the pulsed dye laser at the same session (83%). From baseline to study completion, significant improvements in all scar measures were observed (p < .05). In particular, improvements in overall scarring and in specific scar properties including thickness, stiffness, and color were found (p < .05). To the best our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study to date to evaluate the effect of laser treatment on hypertrophic burn scars in a pediatric population. Our findings suggest that laser therapy is a beneficial treatment for burn-injured children as evidenced by the improvements in subjective and objective scar assessment measures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".