Expert Consensus on Clinical Recommendations for Fractional Ablative CO
fractional ablative CO2 laser
laser treatment
postcare
precare
skin rejuvenation
treatment parameters
Journal
Lasers in surgery and medicine
ISSN: 1096-9101
Titre abrégé: Lasers Surg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8007168
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Oct 2024
21 Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
18
08
2024
received:
27
03
2024
accepted:
17
09
2024
medline:
22
10
2024
pubmed:
22
10
2024
entrez:
22
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
For three decades, fractional ablative CO To develop up-to-date clinical recommendations on safety measures, therapeutic framework, and techniques to improve treatment outcomes. Using Google Forms, a questionnaire with 188 questions was given to a varied sample of 21 dermatologists and plastic surgeons from various countries and practice contexts. A second questionnaire with 11 items was created to resolve any gaps or discrepancies. Active face infections are considered a treatment contraindication by 95% of panelists. Burns, recent sun exposure, and pregnancy or breastfeeding were also considered contraindications (according to 67% of panelists). Over 90% employ bacterial and viral prophylaxis, however the majority (67%) do not prescribe antifungal prophylaxis. The most often stated anesthetic treatments by panelists are topical anesthetic cream, nerve blocks, and oral analgesics (according to 95%, 81%, and 62% of panelists respectively). Over 90% of panel members suggested treatment setting alterations for individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV. Following reepithelization, which happens between 8 and 42 days after the treatment, the majority (76%) of panelists advocate continuing standard skin care routines including active ingredients. Eighty-one percent of panelists recommend using supplementary treatment to maximize results. Supplementary treatment recommendations included use of neuromodulators (76% of panelists), Intense Pulsed Light Therapy treatments pre and postprocedure (61% of panelists), and injection-based therapies such as (Hyaluronic Acid fillers, and biostimulatory fillers) (recommended by 48% of panelists). 60% of panelists perform FACL to improve skin laxity treatment in nonfacial areas and adjust their settings accordingly. Our results reflect only a modest panel size; with a focus on a specific device. Although experienced, the small number of panelists, recommendations, and personal adverse reactions encounters for resurfacing indication, might be biased. Fractional CO
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
For three decades, fractional ablative CO
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To develop up-to-date clinical recommendations on safety measures, therapeutic framework, and techniques to improve treatment outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
Using Google Forms, a questionnaire with 188 questions was given to a varied sample of 21 dermatologists and plastic surgeons from various countries and practice contexts. A second questionnaire with 11 items was created to resolve any gaps or discrepancies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Active face infections are considered a treatment contraindication by 95% of panelists. Burns, recent sun exposure, and pregnancy or breastfeeding were also considered contraindications (according to 67% of panelists). Over 90% employ bacterial and viral prophylaxis, however the majority (67%) do not prescribe antifungal prophylaxis. The most often stated anesthetic treatments by panelists are topical anesthetic cream, nerve blocks, and oral analgesics (according to 95%, 81%, and 62% of panelists respectively). Over 90% of panel members suggested treatment setting alterations for individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV. Following reepithelization, which happens between 8 and 42 days after the treatment, the majority (76%) of panelists advocate continuing standard skin care routines including active ingredients. Eighty-one percent of panelists recommend using supplementary treatment to maximize results. Supplementary treatment recommendations included use of neuromodulators (76% of panelists), Intense Pulsed Light Therapy treatments pre and postprocedure (61% of panelists), and injection-based therapies such as (Hyaluronic Acid fillers, and biostimulatory fillers) (recommended by 48% of panelists). 60% of panelists perform FACL to improve skin laxity treatment in nonfacial areas and adjust their settings accordingly.
LIMITATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results reflect only a modest panel size; with a focus on a specific device. Although experienced, the small number of panelists, recommendations, and personal adverse reactions encounters for resurfacing indication, might be biased.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Fractional CO
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
D. Krupa Shankar, M. Chakravarthi, and R. Shilpakar, “Carbon Dioxide Laser Guidelines,” Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery 2, no. 2 (2009): 72–80.
W. Ramsdell, “Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser Resurfacing,” Seminars in Plastic Surgery 26, no. 3 (2012): 125–130.
P. Bonan and A. Verdelli, “Combined Microwaves and Fractional Microablative CO2 Laser Treatment for Postpartum Abdominal Laxity,” Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 20, no. 1 (January 2021): 124–131.
Y. Oram and A. D. Akkaya, “Neck Rejuvenation With Fractional CO2 Laser: Long‐Term Results,” Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology 7, no. 8 (2014): 23–29.
J. A. Woodward, S. G. Fabi, T. Alster, and B. Colón‐Acevedo, “Safety and Efficacy of Combining Microfocused Ultrasound With Fractional CO2 Laser Resurfacing for Lifting and Tightening the Face and Neck,” Dermatologic Surgery 40, no. Suppl 12 (2014): S190–S193.
G. H. Seong, E. M. Jin, T. U. Ryu, M. H. Kim, B. C. Park, and S. P. Hong, “Fractional Radiofrequency Microneedling Combined With Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser Treatment for Striae Distensae,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 53, no. 2 (2021): 219–226.
X. L. Mei and L. Wang, “Ablative Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser Combined With Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Photoaging Skin in Chinese Population: A Split‐Face Study,” Medicine 97, no. 3 (2018): e9494.
M. S. Zimbler, J. B. Holds, M. S. Kokoska, et al., “Effect of Botulinum Toxin Pretreatment on Laser Resurfacing Results: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Trial,” Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery 3, no. 3 (2001): 165–169.
D. P. Friedmann, S. G. Fabi, and M. P. Goldman, “Combination of Intense Pulsed Light, Sculptra, and Ultherapy for Treatment of the Aging Face,” Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 13, no. 2 (2014): 109–118.
R. E. Edkins, C. S. Hultman, P. Collins, B. Cairns, M. Hanson, and M. Carman, “Improving Comfort and Throughput for Patients Undergoing Fractionated Laser Ablation of Symptomatic Burn Scars,” Annals of Plastic Surgery 74, no. 3 (2015): 293–299.
H. N. Mirza, F. N. Mirza, and K. A. Khatri, “Outcomes and Adverse Effects of Ablative vs Nonablative Lasers for Skin Resurfacing: A Systematic Review of 1093 Patients,” Dermatologic Therapy 34, no. 1 (2021): e14432.
O. Shamsaldeen, J. D. Peterson, and M. P. Goldman, “The Adverse Events of Deep Fractional CO2: A Retrospective Study of 490 Treatments in 374 Patients,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 43, no. 6 (2011): 453–456.
I. T. Y. Wong and V. Richer, “Prophylaxis of Post‐Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation From Energy‐Based Device Treatments: A Review,” Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 25, no. 1 (2021): 77–86.
C. Weinstein, O. Ramirez, and J. Pozner, “Postoperative Care Following Carbon Dioxide Laser Resurfacing. Avoiding Pitfalls,” Dermatologic Surgery 24, no. 1 (1998): 51–56.
V. Mysore, A. Goel, D. Krupashankar, S. Aurangabadkar, K. Nischal, and H. Omprakash, “Fractional Lasers in Dermatology‐‐Current Status and Recommendations,” Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology 77, no. 3 (2011): 369–379.
D. Krupa Shankar, M. Chakravarthi, and R. Shilpakar, “Carbon Dioxide Laser Guidelines,” Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery 2, no. 2 (2009): 72–80.