PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Acne scarring is a very common problem, which can be extensive, and may lead to significant psychosocial morbidity. Multiple types of treatments are used to ameliorate atrophic scars with varying degrees of success. This paper provides an overview of the various energy-based modalities that are commonly employed against acne scarring.
OBJECTIVE: A comprehensive literature search of papers published since 2008 was performed in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used energy-based treatments against post-acne scarring.
RESULTS: A total of 59 relevant articles were identified covering a multitude of different devices.
CONCLUSIONS: Ablative lasers seem to achieve the highest degree of efficacy, albeit this is associated with significant pain and downtime, and the risk for long-term pigmentary changes. Non-ablative fractional photothermolysis (FP) has a much safer profile but cannot achieve as good cosmetic results. The efficacies of fractional radiofrequency microneedling and radiofrequency are slightly inferior to that of FP but offer an even safer adverse profile. Little evidence is available on the remaining devices, with larger studies required in order to reach more solid conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple devices have been used with varying levels of efficacy and very different safety profiles. There is an overall lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions. Furthermore, no standardised scale is available for acne scarring, leading to variability in evaluation and interpretation of data in different studies.
OBJECTIVE: A comprehensive literature search of papers published since 2008 was performed in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used energy-based treatments against post-acne scarring.
RESULTS: A total of 59 relevant articles were identified covering a multitude of different devices.
CONCLUSIONS: Ablative lasers seem to achieve the highest degree of efficacy, albeit this is associated with significant pain and downtime, and the risk for long-term pigmentary changes. Non-ablative fractional photothermolysis (FP) has a much safer profile but cannot achieve as good cosmetic results. The efficacies of fractional radiofrequency microneedling and radiofrequency are slightly inferior to that of FP but offer an even safer adverse profile. Little evidence is available on the remaining devices, with larger studies required in order to reach more solid conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple devices have been used with varying levels of efficacy and very different safety profiles. There is an overall lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions. Furthermore, no standardised scale is available for acne scarring, leading to variability in evaluation and interpretation of data in different studies.
摘要：
背景：痤疮疤痕是一个非常普遍的问题，可以是广泛的，并可能导致严重的社会心理发病率。多种类型的治疗用于改善萎缩性疤痕，并取得不同程度的成功。本文概述了通常用于预防痤疮疤痕的各种基于能量的方式。
目的：对2008年以来发表的论文进行了全面的文献检索，以确定常用的能量疗法对痤疮后瘢痕形成的疗效和不良反应。
结果：共确定了59篇相关文章，涵盖了多种不同的设备。
结论：消融激光似乎取得了最高程度的疗效，尽管这与严重的疼痛和停机时间有关，以及长期色素变化的风险。非烧蚀分数光热解(FP)具有更安全的轮廓,但不能实现良好的美容效果。部分射频微针和射频的功效略低于FP，但提供了更安全的不利情况。其余设备上几乎没有证据，需要更大的研究才能得出更坚实的结论。
结论：已使用多种装置，其疗效和安全性差异很大。总体上缺乏关于不同干预措施效果的高质量证据。此外，没有标准的规模是可用的痤疮疤痕，导致不同研究中数据评估和解释的可变性。
目的：对2008年以来发表的论文进行了全面的文献检索，以确定常用的能量疗法对痤疮后瘢痕形成的疗效和不良反应。
结果：共确定了59篇相关文章，涵盖了多种不同的设备。
结论：消融激光似乎取得了最高程度的疗效，尽管这与严重的疼痛和停机时间有关，以及长期色素变化的风险。非烧蚀分数光热解(FP)具有更安全的轮廓,但不能实现良好的美容效果。部分射频微针和射频的功效略低于FP，但提供了更安全的不利情况。其余设备上几乎没有证据，需要更大的研究才能得出更坚实的结论。
结论：已使用多种装置，其疗效和安全性差异很大。总体上缺乏关于不同干预措施效果的高质量证据。此外，没有标准的规模是可用的痤疮疤痕，导致不同研究中数据评估和解释的可变性。
