Timing of Laser Intervention on Facial Scars: A 3D Imaging and Scar Scale Analysis in a Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives Scars resulting from injuries or surgical procedures often present both physical and aesthetic challenges. Recent studies have indicated promising results in improving postoperative scar outcomes through the combined use of specific laser technologies. Nevertheless, there remains a crucial need for further exploration to ascertain the optimal timing for initiating such treatments. Methods In this retrospective investigation, a cohort of 47 adult patients who did not require hospitalization was analyzed. These patients were divided into two distinct groups: Group A, which received intervention beginning 2 weeks after their respective operations, and Group B, which commenced intervention 4 weeks postoperation. Each group underwent a comprehensive treatment protocol consisting of five laser sessions. Initially, patients underwent three sessions of V‐beam pulsed‐dye laser (PDL) therapy followed by two sessions of ablative fractional CO 2 laser (AFL) therapy. Evaluation of outcomes was conducted using advanced imaging techniques such as Antera 3D imaging, in conjunction with established scar assessment tools including the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the University of North Carolina “4P” Scar Scale (UNC4P). Results All patients successfully completed the full course of five treatment sessions, with no dropouts and no reported adverse events. Baseline cosmetic assessments of scars were equivalent across both groups. In Group A, the mean VSS scores decreased from 7.04 before treatment to 5.29 at 3 months posttreatment and further to 4.33 at 6 months posttreatment. Meanwhile, in Group B, scores decreased from 7.52 to 6.83 at 3 months and 6.17 at 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline VSS scores between the two groups ( p = 0.34). At both the 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up points, mean VSS scores were significantly lower in Group A compared to Group B ( p < 0.05). Similar trends were observed in UNC4P scores. Statistically significant differences were noted across all time points (baseline, 3 months, and 6 months posttreatment) for both VSS and UNC4P scores ( p < 0.05). Subset analysis revealed greater improvements in texture and depression volume at 3 months posttreatment, while improvements in depression area, depth, elevation variation, and area were more pronounced at the 6‐month mark. Conclusions Early intervention using the combined 595‐nm pulse dye laser and CO 2 ablative fractional laser (AFL) 2‐ and 4‐weeks post‐surgery proves to be an effective and safe method for improving scar outcomes, particularly for facial surgical scars when treatment starts 2 weeks after surgery. However, further research is needed to refine our understanding and address potential study limitations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".