Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42709270

Fractional laser therapy versus microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions.

Dong Dong·Yushi Hong·Jia Wang·Zexin Jiang·Baoxian Shen·Sitong Zhou·Jiehua Li·Na Lu
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scarring caused by trauma, burns, surgery, and other dermal fibrotic conditions can lead to functional limitation and cosmetic distress. The comparative effectiveness of fractional laser therapy and microneedling for non-acne scars remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing fractional laser therapy with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. Following a PROSPERO-registered protocol and PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to May 2026 without language restrictions. Parallel-group and split-body randomized trials were eligible. Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were included. Fractional laser therapy showed a statistically significant advantage over microneedling in scar scores (SMD = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.83, -0.15], P = 0.02) and collagen fiber regeneration (SMD = -2.14, 95% CI [-3.57, -0.72], P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found between the two interventions for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse events. Subgroup analyses did not show clear or consistent significant differences according to laser type, including comparisons between traditional and non-traditional fractional lasers and between CO₂ and non-CO₂ fractional laser systems. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across several outcomes, indicating considerable between-study variability. CONCLUSION: Based on currently available randomized evidence, fractional laser therapy may provide superior improvement in overall scar severity and collagen fiber regeneration compared with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. However, no clear differences were observed for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse-event incidence. Given the substantial heterogeneity, limited sample sizes, and possible reporting bias, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further large, standardized trials with longer follow-up are needed.

Explore related subjects

HumansCicatrixPercutaneous Collagen InductionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicNeedlesLaser TherapyFibrosisBurnsCollagenJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Dong Dong, Yushi Hong, Jia Wang, Zexin Jiang, Baoxian Shen, Sitong Zhou, Jiehua Li, Na Lu. 2026-09-08. Fractional laser therapy versus microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-026-05017-w

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Collagen subjectComparative Study subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectMeta-Analysis subjectNeedles subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Comparison of a 755-nm picosecond laser and a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser for the treatment of atrophic acne scars: a 20-week prospective, randomized, split-face clinical study.

To compare the efficacy and safety of a 755-nm picosecond laser with a diffractive lens array (P-DLA) and a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) for the treatment of atrophic acne scars. Twenty-seven patients with atrophic acne scars underwent three sessions of randomized split-face treatment with P-DLA and NAFL at 4-week intervals. Patients were followed up at 1, 2, and 3 months after the final treatment. Efficacy was assessed using the &#xc9;chelle d'&#xc9;valuation Clinique des Cicatrices d'Acn&#xe9; (ECCA) grading scale, the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score, patients' self-rated improvement, and overall satisfaction. Treatment-related adverse reactions were recorded daily by patients until resolution. Both modalities demonstrated significant improvements in scar appearance based on ECCA score, IGA score, and patients' self-rated improvement (P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two treatments. However, the P-DLA group showed higher patient satisfaction (P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.035) and a more favorable safety profile, including shorter durations of erythema and edema and the absence of crusting. Both P-DLA and NAFL were effective and safe for the treatment of atrophic acne scars, with similar efficacy. P-DLA offered better tolerability.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma in Reducing Oronasal Fistula and Scar Width in Primary Cleft Lip and Palate Repair-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This review aimed to investigate platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) efficiency in reducing oronasal fistula during primary cleft lip and palate repair. An extensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Global Index Medics (WHO), PubMed Scopus, Cochrane Central, Proquest was performed up to march 2025. Eligible studies included prospective RCTs and non-randomized controlled trials in human subjects. Patients aged 6-24&#x2009;months undergoing primary cleft lip and palate repair were involved. Interventions involved intraoperative use of PRP/PRF compared with controls without PRP/PRF. The primary outcome was occurrence of oronasal fistula; secondary outcomes were scar width, wound infection and postoperative bleeding with wound dehiscence. Study selection followed PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was determined with the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I method of assessment. Seven studies met the required criterion and were qualitatively synthesized. Evidence suggested that PRP/PRF application was associated with a lower incidence of oronasal fistula and reduced scar width compared with controls. Additional benefits included accelerated wound healing and faster recovery. The use of autologous PRP was also reported to decrease the need for further surgical interventions. However, the certainty of evidence was limited due to small sample sizes and methodological heterogeneity. PRP and PRF show promising benefits in cleft lip and palate repair, particularly decreased fistula formation and reduced scar width. Nevertheless, current evidence is of low to very low certainty. Larger, well-designed randomized trials are required to validate the results obtained. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD420251032421.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

A standardised risk-stratified approach to the urological management of children with spina bifida.

BACKGROUND: The establishment of a multidisciplinary spina bifida (SB) clinic in 2006 resulted in a review of the literature and an audit of renal outcomes based on then management practices. The audit showed 17% new onset renal scarring over a mean 5.8-year follow-up period. This prompted the development of a local protocol based on risk stratification combining serial ultrasound and non-invasive bladder function assessments, with invasive urodynamic studies reserved for high-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the impact of a risk stratified protocol on renal scarring and continence outcomes in children with SB. METHODS: A single centre, retrospective case review of SB patients treated after the introduction of the protocol was conducted. Electronic medical records were used to access patient demographics, continence status and the results of investigations and adherence to the local management protocol. Management that deviated from the protocol was deemed non-adherence. Renal scarring was determined by the presence of scarring on DMSA renogram. Continence was defined as having no urinary incontinence or no more than a single episode of incontinence in a month in patients above the age of 5. For statistical analysis, descriptive statistics in percentages were used, for comparisons of dichotomous variables the Students t-test was performed and to calculate statistical significance a Fisher exact test was done. RESULTS: 167 SB patients were identified with a mean follow up of 56 months. 141 patients were considered adherent to the protocol, 26 were non-adherent. In the protocol adherent group 5 patients (3.5%) developed renal scarring compared with 6 patients (23%) managed out of protocol (p = 0.002). Overall, 49/108 patients were continent either self-voiding 8/108 (7%), with urethral CIC 19/108 (20%) and 22/108 (45%) of them required bladder augmentation. Urinary continence improved with age with 26% continence at age 10, 64% continence by age 15 and 90% continent above 15 years of age. CONCLUSION: A management approach based on risk stratification resulted in incidence of renal scarring that is better than historical controls and comparable to published outcomes. Social continence was achieved in 90% of SB patients by 15 years of age. Hostile bladder changes can be readily identified using non-invasive assessment methods. An expectant treatment approach based on risk stratification is associated with good long term renal outcome and utilises invasive urodynamic resources for SB patients at high risk of renal injury or to address urinary continence in the older child.

Humans↗