Analysis of the Utility of CO2 and Pulse-Dye Lasers Together and Separately in the Treatment of Hypertrophic Burn Scars. Issue 2 (August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cooper, Laura E.; Nuutila, Kristo; Kemp Bohan, Philip M.; Diaz, Victoria; Batchinsky, Maria; Carlsson, Anders H.; Cancio, Leopoldo C.; Chan, Rodney K.
• Is Part Of: Annals of plastic surgery. Volume 89:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 166
• Page End: 172
• Publication Date: 2022-08
• Subjects: CO2 laser -- hypertrophic burn scars -- pulse-dye lasers; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.95205
• DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003240
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-7043

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Hypertrophic burn scars (HTBSs) remain a significant source of morbidity. Contemporary treatment has evolved to use CO2 lasers and/or pulse-dye lasers (PDLs) to reduce scar thickness (ST) and erythema. This study seeks to compare treatment efficacy with CO2 or PDL individually and in combination. Methods: Patients undergoing laser treatments for HTBSs were enrolled. Three 3 × 3 cm squares of HTBSs were randomized to receive treatment with CO2 laser, PDL or CO2 + PDL. Patients underwent 3 treatments, 4 to 6 weeks apart and were followed up over 3 to 6 months. Scar assessments occurred at each visit before treatment and consisted of photographs, ultrasound, colorimetry, and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Score. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled. Twenty completed 2 treatments (80%) and 11 completed all 3 treatments (44%). Median initial ST was 0.3 cm. Median time since injury was 8 months. Hypertrophic burn scars treated with CO2 or PDL showed a significant decrease in Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale score from visit 1 to 3 ( P = 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). When separated by ST, thick scars (≥0.3 cm) showed a significant decrease in thickness between visit 1 and 2 using all laser modalities (CO2 + PDL, P = 0.01; CO2, P = 0.02; PDL, P = 0.03). Thin scars (<0.3 cm) showed a reduction in thickness by visit 3 after CO2 + PDL or PDL alone ( P = 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). Separating scars by age, younger scars (<9 months) showed a significant reduction in thickness between visit 1 and 2 for CO2 treatment ( P = 0.04), and between visit 2 and 3 for CO2 + PDL treatment ( P = 0.04). Hypertrophic burn scars treated with PDL did not demonstrate a significant reduction in thickness until visit 3 ( P = 0.002). Older scars (≥9 months) showed a significant reduction in thickness between visit 1 and 2 only after CO2 + PDL ( P = 0.01). Conclusions: Hypertrophic burn scars of varying ages, etiologies, and thicknesses were examined in this study with greater degree of early reduction seen in thicker scars using all laser modalities of CO2, PDL or in combination. However, there was no clinically meaningful benefit found with combination as compared with individual treatment. These data support the use of laser to improve HTBS but does not support one modality or combination of modalities over another.