Evidence Hub

Effect of Laser and Energy-based Device Therapies to Minimize Surgical Scar Formation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Sasitorn Yenyuwadee, Petchlada Achavanuntakul, P. Phisalprapa, M. Levin, Surasak Saokaew, S. Kanchanasurakit, W. Manuskiatti

Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 2024

482 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Utilization of lasers and energy-based devices for surgical scar minimization has been substantially evaluated in placebo-controlled trials. The aim of this study was to compare reported measures of efficacy of lasers and energy-based devices in clinical trials in preventing surgical scar formation in a systematic review and network meta-analyses. Five electronic databases, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library, were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The search was limited to randomized controlled trials that reported on clinical outcomes of surgical scars with treatment initiation no later than 6 months after surgery and a follow-up period of at least 3 months. A total of 18 randomized controlled trials involving 482 participants and 671 postsurgical wounds were included in the network meta-analyses. The results showed that the most efficacious treatments were achieved using low-level laser therapy) (weighted mean difference –3.78; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) –6.32, –1.24) and pulsed dye laser (weighted mean difference –2.46; 95% CI –4.53, –0.38). Nevertheless, low-level laser therapy and pulsed dye laser demonstrated comparable outcomes in surgical scar minimization (weighted mean difference –1.32, 95% CI –3.53, 0.89). The findings of this network meta-analyses suggest that low-level laser therapy and pulsed dye laser are both effective treatments for minimization of scar formation following primary closure of surgical wounds with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 482 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free