BACKGROUND: Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a prevalent form of hair loss that affects both men and women, severely impacting patients\' quality of life. Traditional treatments include oral medications, topical medications, and hair transplantation, but these methods have certain side effects and limitations. How to safely effectively and maximally promote hair growth has been a key issue in the treatment of AGA. In recent years, fractionated laser therapy, as a noninvasive method, has gradually gained attention due to its minimally invasive and highly effective nature.
OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we summarized the studies related to fractional laser treatment of AGA in the past 15 years, and discussed its therapeutic mechanism, clinical effect, future development direction, and advantages and disadvantages compared with traditional treatment methods in the treatment of AGA.
METHODS: An extensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus. All available articles studying fractional laser treatment of AGA were compiled in March 2024. Titles and abstracts were then screened for relevance and thoroughly examined for patient clinical outcomes. Prospective clinical trials, retrospective chart reviews, case series, and individual case reports were included in the literature review.
CONCLUSIONS: Fractional laser treatment of AGA showed remarkable efficacy and high safety. Compared with traditional treatments, fractional laser has the advantages of minimally invasive, quick recovery, fewer side effects, and a wide range of population applicability, providing an effective treatment option for AGA patients. Further large-scale clinical studies will help optimize the laser parameters and treatment settings to improve the therapeutic effect.

It is generally believed that ablative laser therapies result in prolonged healing and greater adverse events when compared with nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing. To evaluate the efficacy of ablative laser use for skin resurfacing and adverse events as a consequence of treatment in comparison to other modalities, a PRISMA-compliant systematic review (Systematic Review Registration Number: 204016) of twelve electronic databases was conducted for the terms \"ablative laser\" and \"skin resurfacing\" from March 2002 until July 2020. Studies included meta-analyses, randomized control trials, cohort studies, and case reports to facilitate evaluation of the data. All articles were evaluated for bias. The search strategy produced 34 studies. Of 1093 patients included in the studies of interest, adverse events were reported in a total of 106 patients (9.7%). Higher rates of adverse events were described in nonablative therapies (12.2% ± 2.19%, 31 events) when compared with ablative therapy (8.28% ± 2.46%, 81 events). 147 patients (13.4%) reported no side effects, 68 (6.22%) reported expected, transient self-resolving events, and five (0.046%) presented with hypertrophic scarring. Excluding transient events, ablative lasers had fewer complications overall when compared with nonablative lasers (2.56% ± 2.19% vs 7.48% ± 3.29%). This systematic review suggests ablative laser use for skin resurfacing is a safe and effective modality to treat a range of pathologies from photodamage and acne scars to hidradenitis suppurativa and posttraumatic scarring from basal cell carcinoma excision. Further studies are needed, but these results suggest that ablative lasers are a superior, safe, and effective modality to treat damaged skin.

Hypertrophic scars (HTS) following burns and other trauma and are associated with significant functional and psychosocial impairment. Ablative fractional lasers (AFLs) are increasingly being applied in the treatment of HTS supported by a rapidly expanding multidisciplinary base of literature. The multidisciplinary authors sought to evaluate existing literature, provide context and identify gaps, and make recommendations for a path forward. A systematic review was conducted to identify literature pertinent literature through September 2019. Retrospective cohort, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, observational prospective cohort, or case series with five or more subjects with hypertrophic scars incurred from burns and related trauma were considered. Twenty-two of the 23 evaluated studies documented statistically significant and/or meaningful qualitative improvements in nearly all outcome measures. Adverse events were generally infrequent and minor. Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies included in this systematic review, precluding metaanalysis of pooled data. There is abundant existing literature on the use of AFLs in the management of HTS but study heterogeneity limits generalizability. Future studies should prioritize standardized protocols including assessments of function and quality of life.

Hair loss stemming from different types of alopecia, such as androgenic alopecia and alopecia areata, negatively affects over half the population and, in many circumstances, causes serious psychosocial distress. Current treatment options for alopecia, such as minoxidil, anthralin, and intralesional corticosteroids, vary efficacy and side effect profiles. It is known that low-level laser/light therapies (LLLT), or photobiomodulations, such as the US FDA-cleared HairMax Lasercomb®, He-Ne laser, and excimer laser, are relatively affordable, user-friendly, safe, and effective forms of treatment for hair loss. While less is known about the effectiveness of fractional lasers for combating hair loss, research suggests that by creating microscopic thermal injury zones, fractional lasers may cause an increase in hair growth from a wound healing process, making them potential therapeutic options for alopecia. A literature review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of fractional lasers on hair regrowth. The specific fractional laser therapies include the 1550-nm nonablative fractional erbium-glass laser, the ablative fractional 2940-nm erbium:YAG laser, and the ablative fractional CO2 fractional laser. Additional randomized controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the effectiveness of the lasers, as well as to establish appropriate parameters and treatment intervals.

Numerous laser platforms exist that rejuvenate the skin by resurfacing its upper layers. In varying degrees, these lasers improve the appearance of lentigines and rhytides, eliminate photoaging, soften scarring due to acne and other causes, and treat dyspigmentation. Five major classes of dermatologic lasers are currently in common use: ablative and nonablative lasers in both fractionated and unfractionated forms as well as radiofrequency technologies. The gentler nonablative lasers allow for quicker healing, whereas harsher ablative lasers tend to be more effective. Fractionating either laser distributes the effect, increasing the number of treatments but minimizing downtime and complications. In this review article, the authors seek to inform surgeons about the current laser platforms available, clarify the differences between them, and thereby facilitate the identification of the most appropriate laser for their practice.