Volume 19, Issue 11 pp. 1559-1568
Review
Free to Read

Comparative appraisal with meta-analysis of erbium vs. CO2 lasers for atrophic acne scars

Husein Husein-ElAhmed

Corresponding Author

Husein Husein-ElAhmed

Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Hospital de Baza, Granada, Spain

Translational Research Institute, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar

Correspondence to

Husein Husein-ElAhmed, MD, PhD

Department of Dermatology and Venereology

Hospital de Baza

Carr. de Murcia, S/N

18800 Baza, Granada, Spain

E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Martin Steinhoff

Martin Steinhoff

Translational Research Institute, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar

Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar

Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, College of Medicine, Doha, Qatar

Qatar University, Medical School, Doha, Qatar

Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 23 September 2021
Citations: 8

Summary

Recent advances in laser technology allowed the development of systems that improve texture, appearance and pliability of skin in acne scars (AS). Currently, comprehensive comparative studies on the efficacy of the most commonly used fractional systems in AS are lacking. Thus, the aim of this work was to appraise and compare the clinical response to erbium versus CO2 lasers in AS in the form of a meta-analysis. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library were searched. Main clinical outcomes were investigator-reported scar improvement and participant-reported scar improvement. Five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Scar improvement was similar for both types of laser in terms of investigator-reported scar improvement (RR: 0.60 95 % CI: 0.35–1.02) and participant-reported scar improvement (RR: 0.99 95 % CI: 0.79–1.25). A sensitivity analysis that excluded studies with high risk of bias found the CO2 lasers to be superior to the erbium lasers (RR: 0.47 95 % CI: 0.24–0.93): However, the subgroup analysis showed the CO2 laser not to be significantly different from either the non-ablative erbium (RR: 0.65 95 % CI: 0.34–1.24) or the ablative erbium laser (RR: 0.60 95 % CI: 0.35–1.02). The CO2 laser produced a slightly greater clinical response compared to the erbium lasers based on the physician’s assessment. Overall, the two devices do not differ largely in terms of efficacy but may be complementary, with each resurfacing laser better suited for different clinical tasks.

Conflict of interest

None.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.