Efficacy and safety of CO2 fractional laser versus Er:YAG fractional laser in the treatment of atrophic acne scar: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

• Published in: Journal of cosmetic dermatology 2024-09, Vol.23 (9), p.2768-2778
• Main Authors: Liu, Fei, Zhou, Qiujun, Tao, Maocan, Shu, Luying, Cao, Yi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: atrophic acne scar; CO2 fractional laser; efficacy and safety; Er:YAG fractional laser; meta‐analysis and systematic review
• ISSN: 1473-2130; 1473-2165; 1473-2165
• DOI: 10.1111/jocd.16348

Background To date, a consensus on the relative efficacy and safety of CO2 fractional laser versus erbium‐doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) fractional laser treatments for atrophic acne scars has not been reached. This meta‐analysis aims to systematically assess and compare their effectiveness and safety in clinical practice. Methods For this meta‐analysis, we conducted comprehensive searches in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, covering publications from their inception up to August 2023. Our focus was on studies comparing fractional CO2 laser with Er:YAG fractional laser treatments for atrophic acne scars. We excluded duplicate publications, research lacking full‐text access, incomplete data, or cases where data extraction was not feasible. Additionally, animal experiments, reviews, and systematic reviews were not considered. Data analysis was performed using STATA 15.1. Results Eight studies (seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a retrospective study) were included in this meta‐analysis. The sample size ranged from 28 to 106 with a total of 418 patients, including 210 in the CO2 fractional group and 208 in Er:YAG fractional group. The pooled results showed that the effective rate of CO2 fractional laser in treating atrophic acne scar was significantly higher than that of Er:YAG fractional laser (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.08–3.01) and the downtime of CO2 fractional laser in treating atrophic acne scar was significantly shorter than that of Er:YAG fractional laser (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = −2.11, 95% CI: −3.11 to −1.10). In addition, VAS of CO2 fractional laser in treating atrophic acne scar was significantly higher than that of Er:YAG fractional laser (WMD = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.32–2.21) and the duration of erythema of CO2 fractional laser in treating atrophic acne scar was significantly longer than that of Er:YAG fractional laser (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.63–2.07). However, there was no significant difference in the duration of pain and incidence of PIHbetween CO2 fractional laser and of Er:YAG fractional laser. Conclusion When it comes to treating atrophic acne scars, CO2 fractional laser demonstrates superior efficacy and leads to shorter downtime. However, it is important to note that CO2 fractional laser treatments tend to result in higher pain intensity and may carry a higher risk of post‐treatment pigmentation compared to Er:YAG fractional laser procedures.