Ablative non-fractional lasers for atrophic facial acne scars: a new modality of erbium:YAG laser resurfacing in Asians

Energy-based devices in the treatment of acne scars in skin of color

BACKGROUND

Acne scarring is disfiguring and psychologically taxing on patients. Many energy-based modalities have emerged and been studied for the treatment of acne scarring; however, there is a paucity of these studies in skin phototypes IV-VI.

OBJECTIVE

To review the medical literature and discuss the most significant studies regarding safety and efficacy of energy-based devices (ablative lasers, non-ablative lasers, and radiofrequency microneedling) in the treatment of ethnic skin (skin phototypes IV-VI).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and bibliographies of relevant articles.

RESULTS

Ablative and non-ablative lasers have proven to be effective for treatment of acne scars in ethnic skin. The risk of developing adverse effects such as post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation is contingent upon several factors including skin phototype, laser device, fluence, and moreso density settings. Non-ablative fractional lasers have been considered first line for the treatment of acne scars in skin of color due to their better safety profile; however, they are less efficacious and require more treatments compared to ablative lasers. Studies regarding efficacy and safety of radiofrequency microneedling for treatment of acne scarring in skin of color are limited, but are promising.

CONCLUSION

Ablative lasers, non-ablative lasers, and radiofrequency microneedling are all useful treatments for acne scarring in ethnic skin when appropriate settings are used. Further head-to-head studies are needed to evaluate their efficacy and safety in darker skin phototypes V-VI.

Comparison of 1565-nm Nonablative Fractional Laser and 10600-nm Ablative Fractional Laser in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Atrophic Acne Scars

BACKGROUND

The 10,600-nm ablative fractional laser (AFL) is widely used for treating facial atrophic acne scars but with evident side effects. By contrast, the common Er:Glass non-AFL (NAFL) is safer but lacks of comparable outcomes. A novel 1,565 nm Er:Glass NAFL improves thermal energy delivery and could yield better outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety between the 1,565-nm NAFL and 10,600-nm AFL in treating mild-to-moderate facial atrophic acne scars.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with mild-to-moderate bilateral facial atrophic acne scars were enrolled in a randomized split-face trial, which involved 3-session procedures for each laser. The effectiveness and safety were evaluated by doctors and patients who were blinded to the treatment assignment.

RESULTS

Both lasers improved the acne scar profiles comparably. A marked reduction in erythema, crusting durations, and degree of pain were noted on the sides treated with the 1,565-nm NAFL, relative to those treated with the 10,600-nm AFL.

CONCLUSION

Both 1,565 nm-NAFL and 10,600-nm AFL can improve mild-to-moderate acne scars. Patients should never expect complete resolution. The 1,565-nm NAFL has less side effects.

Comparison of Fractional Micro-Plasma Radiofrequency and Fractional Microneedle Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Atrophic Acne Scars: A Pilot Randomized Split-Face Clinical Study in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Both fractional micro-plasma radiofrequency (RF) and fractional microneedle RF are novel devices that can be applied for the treatment of atrophic acne scars, and they have both been proved to be effective. To compare the clinical effectiveness and adverse reactions of fractional micro-plasma RF and fractional microneedle RF for the therapy of facial atrophic acne scars in a randomized split-face study.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with facial atrophic acne scars received three applications at 2-month intervals in a randomized split-face study using fractional micro-plasma RF and fractional microneedle RF on different sides of the face. Three independent dermatologists evaluated the improvement in acne scars using the ECCA grading scale (Echelle d'Evaluation Clinique des Cicatrices d'Acné) by comparing the digital images and graded the improvement in the acne scars. Patients were asked to provide a self-evaluation of satisfaction for efficacy and safety. Adverse effects were also recorded after each treatment.

RESULTS

In total sixty patients completed the entire study. A significant improvement was observed in the appearance of acne scars, and the mean ECCA scores improved significantly after both modalities. The mean decrease in ECCA scores from the baseline was significantly more pronounced in fractional micro-plasma RF as compared with fractional microneedle RF (41.33 ± 20.19 vs 32.17 ± 17.35; P < 0.05). The degree of clinical improvement was also significantly better for fractional micro-plasma RF. Pain, erythema, and swelling were observed in all patients after both treatments. The pain was more intense during micro-plasma RF treatment (P = 0.000), and the duration of pain and erythema were longer than with fractional microneedle RF (P = 0.000). Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) was observed in one patient on the fractional micro-plasma RF side while no PIH was observed on the fractional microneedle RF side. No infections or worsening of scarring was observed with either treatment. No subject was dissatisfied with the efficacy of either device. Rolling scars tended to respond better to fractional micro-plasma RF treatment compared with fractional microneedle RF (P = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Both fractional micro-plasma RF and fractional microneedle RF are effective and safe methods for improving atrophic acne scars. Fractional micro-plasma RF is significantly more effective for atrophic acne scars, especially for rolling scars. However, fractional microneedle RF has fewer side effects plus shorter downtime, and patients are more comfortable after the treatment. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

The Efficacy and Safety of a Variable Square Pulse (VSP) Erbium:YAG Laser for Treatment of Enlarged Pores in Asians

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Enlarged pores are one of the most common causes of skin surface irregularities. Existing studies supporting the benefit of lasers and energy-based devices (EBD) for this condition are limited, with a short duration of follow-up period. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of Er:YAG laser for treatment of enlarged pores in dark-skinned patients.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen subjects (aged 26-47 years) with skin phototypes III (21.1%) and IV (78.9%) and enlarged pores were treated with 4 monthly sessions of Erbium:YAG laser. Objective (ultraviolet light A video camera) and subjective (clinical evaluation by two blinded dermatologists) assessments were obtained at baseline, 1-month after each treatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months after the final treatment.

RESULTS

The weighted mean score of quartile grading scales showed significant improvement in pore size from baseline starting at 1-month after the third treatment and continued until 3 months after the fourth (final) treatment (P < 0.001). However, the improvement dropped significantly at 6 months after the final treatment. Objective measurements of the improvements in skin surface smoothness and wrinkles corresponded with the physician raters' clinical evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Erbium:YAG laser is a safe and effective treatment for enlarged pores in dark-skinned individuals. Maintenance treatments are recommended to achieve a longer-lasting outcome. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Outcomes and adverse effects of ablative vs nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing: A systematic review of 1093 patients

It is generally believed that ablative laser therapies result in prolonged healing and greater adverse events when compared with nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing. To evaluate the efficacy of ablative laser use for skin resurfacing and adverse events as a consequence of treatment in comparison to other modalities, a PRISMA-compliant systematic review (Systematic Review Registration Number: 204016) of twelve electronic databases was conducted for the terms "ablative laser" and "skin resurfacing" from March 2002 until July 2020. Studies included meta-analyses, randomized control trials, cohort studies, and case reports to facilitate evaluation of the data. All articles were evaluated for bias. The search strategy produced 34 studies. Of 1093 patients included in the studies of interest, adverse events were reported in a total of 106 patients (9.7%). Higher rates of adverse events were described in nonablative therapies (12.2% ± 2.19%, 31 events) when compared with ablative therapy (8.28% ± 2.46%, 81 events). 147 patients (13.4%) reported no side effects, 68 (6.22%) reported expected, transient self-resolving events, and five (0.046%) presented with hypertrophic scarring. Excluding transient events, ablative lasers had fewer complications overall when compared with nonablative lasers (2.56% ± 2.19% vs 7.48% ± 3.29%). This systematic review suggests ablative laser use for skin resurfacing is a safe and effective modality to treat a range of pathologies from photodamage and acne scars to hidradenitis suppurativa and posttraumatic scarring from basal cell carcinoma excision. Further studies are needed, but these results suggest that ablative lasers are a superior, safe, and effective modality to treat damaged skin.

Molecular effects of fractional ablative erbium:YAG laser treatment with multiple stacked pulses on standardized human three-dimensional organotypic skin models

The molecular changes in gene expression following ablative laser treatment of skin lesions, such as atrophic scars and UV-damaged skin, are not completely understood. A standardized in vitro model of human skin, to study the effects of laser treatment on human skin, has been recently developed. Therefore, the aim of the investigation was to examine morphological and molecular changes caused by fractional ablative erbium:YAG laser treatment on an in vitro full-thickness 3D standardized organotypic model of human skin. A fractional ablative erbium:YAG laser was used to irradiate organotypic human 3D models. Laser treatments were performed at four different settings using a variety of stacked pulses with similar cumulative total energy fluence (60 J/cm²). Specimens were harvested at specified time points and real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) and microarray studies were performed. Frozen sections were examined histologically. Three days after erbium:YAG laser treatment, a significantly increased mRNA expression of matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors (MMP1, MMP2, MMP3, TIMP1, and TIMP2), chemokines (CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL5, and CXCL6), and cytokines such as IL6, IL8, and IL24 could be detected. qRT-PCR studies confirmed the enhanced mRNA expression of IL6, IL8, IL24, CXCLs, and MMPs. In contrast, the mRNA expression of epidermal differentiation markers, such as keratin-associated protein 4, filaggrin, filaggrin 2, and loricrin, and antimicrobial peptides (S100A7A, S100A9, and S100A12) as well as CASP14, DSG2, IL18, and IL36β was reduced. Four different settings with similar cumulative doses have been tested (N10%, C10%, E10%, and W25%). These laser treatments resulted in different morphological changes and effects on gene regulations. Longer pulse durations (1000 μs) especially had the strongest impact on gene expression and resulted in an upregulation of genes, such as collagen-1A2, collagen-5A2, and collagen-6A2, as well as FGF2. Histologically, all treatment settings resulted in a complete regeneration of the epidermis 3 days after irradiation. Fractional ablative erbium:YAG laser treatment with a pulse stacking technique resulted in histological alterations and shifts in the expression of various genes related to epidermal differentiation, inflammation, and dermal remodeling depending on the treatment setting applied. A standardized in vitro 3D model of human skin proved to be a useful tool for exploring the effects of various laser settings both on skin morphology and gene expression during wound healing. It provides novel data on the gene expression and microscopic architecture of the exposed skin. This may enhance our understanding of laser treatment at a molecular level.

Interventions for acne scars

BACKGROUND

Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.

Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars: Resurfacing and fractional lasers

BACKGROUND

Acne scars are common and cause cosmetic problems. There is a multitude of treatment options for acne scars, including dermabrasion, chemical peeling, and fillers, but the advent of laser technology has greatly improved the treatment of acne scars. Although several laser systems are available, studies comparing their efficacy are limited. This study compares the results of treatments using resurfacing (carbon dioxide, CO2; erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, Er:YAG) versus fractional (nonablative fractional laser, NAFL; ablative fractional laser, AFL) lasers.

METHODS

A retrospective photographic analysis of 58 patients who underwent laser treatment for facial atrophic acne scars was performed. Clinical improvement was assessed by six blinded investigators with a scale graded from 0 to 10. Adverse events were also noted.

RESULTS

Mean improvement scores of the CO2, Er:YAG, NAFL, and AFL groups were 6.0, 5.8, 2.2, and 5.2, respectively. The NAFL group showed a significantly lower score than the other groups. The mean number of treatments was significantly greater in the fractional laser groups than in the resurfacing laser groups. The resurfacing laser groups had a prolonged recovery period and high risk of complications. The Er:YAG laser caused less erythema or pigmentation compared to the CO2 laser.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the CO2 laser, Er:YAG laser, and AFL improved the acne scars, the CO2 laser had a greater downtime. Three consecutive AFL treatments are as effective as a single treatment with resurfacing lasers, with shorter social downtime periods and less adverse effects.

High versus moderate energy use of bipolar fractional radiofrequency in the treatment of acne scars: a split-face double-blinded randomized control trial pilot study

Bipolar fractional radiofrequency (FRF) device was firstly FDA-approved for treating atrophic acne scar in 2008 through the process of dermal coagulation and minimal epidermal ablation. The average energy at 60 mJ/pin was widely used to treat atrophic acne scars. However, the higher energy was delivered, the deeper ablation and coagulation were found. At present, the new generation of a device with bipolar FRF technology with electrode-pin tip was developed to maximize ability to deliver energy up to 100 mJ/pin. The objective of the study was to explore and compare the efficacy of utilizing high energy (100 mJ/pin) and moderate energy (60 mJ/pin) of bipolar fractional radiofrequency in treatment of atrophic acne scar in Asians. This is a split-face, double-blinded, randomized control trial, pilot study by using parallel group design technique. Thirty healthy subjects with Fitzpatrick skin phototype III-IV diagnosed as atrophic acne scares were enrolled. All subjects received four monthly sessions of bipolar FRF treatment. Left and right facial sides of individual patients were randomly assigned for different energy (high energy at 100 mJ/pin versus moderate energy at 60 mJ/pin). Acne scars improvement was blinded graded by dermatologist using global acne scarring score (GASS) which was subjectively evaluated at baseline, 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up. Objective scar analysis was also done using UVA-light video camera to measure scar volume, skin smoothness, and wrinkle at baseline, 3-, and 6-month follow-up after the last treatment. Side effects including pain, erythema, swelling, and crusting were also recorded. Thirty subjects completed the study with full 4-treatment course. The mean GASS of high energy side and moderate energy side was significantly reduced at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up visits. At 1 month follow-visit, high energy side demonstrated significant improvement compared with moderate energy side (p = 0.03). Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) developed in 21/120 sessions in high energy side (17.5 %) and 16/120 sessions in moderate energy side (13.3 %). Pain score and the duration of erythema after treatments were significant higher on the side that was treated with high energy. Bipolar FRF device was safe and effective in the treatment of atrophic acne scars in Asians. High energy setting demonstrated significant higher efficacy at 1 month follow-visit. However, the efficacy of both energy settings was comparable at 3- and 6-month follow-up. In addition, side effects were significantly more intense on the side treated with high energy.

Attenuation of acne scars using high power fractional ablative unipolar radiofrequency and ultrasound for transepidermal delivery of bioactive compounds through microchannels

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of a new method for treating acne scarring over a short-term period of 2 months and a long-term period of 6 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six faces and 13 shoulders or backs for a total of 19 patients were treated, all of which displayed varying degrees of acne scarring, from moderate to severe. A newly developed high-power unipolar fractional ablative radiofrequency technology was used (iPixel™ RF, Alma Lasers, Caesarea, Israel), with acoustic pressure ultrasound guided dermal injection of the PixelTreat Scars preparation (Alma Lasers), through RF Pixel fractionated microchannels. All patients underwent four treatment sessions at 3-week intervals.

RESULTS

Significant improvement was observed in scarring, both on the face (P < 0.0001), and on the back and shoulders (P < 0.0001). After 2 months, the percentage of fading on total scarring was 57% on the face and 49% on the back and shoulders; after 6 months, the percentage increased to 62% on the face, and 58% on the back and shoulders, respectively. Patients reported to be Somewhat Satisfied (16%), Satisfied (53%), and Very Satisfied (31%). No unexpected side effects to the ablation and no hypersensitive reactions to PixelTreat Scars were observed.

CONCLUSION

The bimodal procedure is safe and effective in reducing acne scarring. This represents a new therapeutic alternative of great interest, to be used either as a monotherapy, or in combination with other treatments.