Effectiveness of Early Laser Treatment in Surgical Scar Minimization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Dermatologic Surgery. 46(3):402-410, 2020 03.PMID: 30893164Institution: MedStar Health Research Institute | MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute | MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Dermatology | Firefighters' Burn and Surgical Research Laboratory | Surgery/Burn ServicesForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Cicatrix/th [Therapy] | *Laser Therapy/mt [Methods] | *Postoperative Complications/th [Therapy] | Humans | Pain Measurement | Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicYear: 2020Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1999 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006ISSN:
  • 1076-0512
Name of journal: Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]Abstract: BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the efficacy of lasers to minimize early surgical scars are low powered and report variable results. To further examine the evidence, the authors performed a systemic review and meta-analysis.CONCLUSION: The outcome supports the efficacy of lasers in minimizing primarily closed surgical scars when treated <1 month after surgery.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts, and Cochrane Library was performed between November 6, 2015, and November 20, 2015. After assessing for inclusion, data extraction used the PRISMA checklist. Assessment for quality, validity, and risk of bias applied a scale devised by Jadad and colleagues, the Oxford Pain Validity Scale, and the RevMan risk of bias assessment tool, respectively. The GRADEpro application graded overall quality, and statistical analysis was performed with RevMan.OBJECTIVE: To present the evidence of randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of laser modalities in minimizing surgical scars when applied <1 month after operation.RESULTS: Approximately 4,373/4,397 abstracts and 16/24 full articles were excluded using predefined criteria, leaving 8 articles in the systematic review and 4 in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome reached statistical significance favoring the intervention group with standardized mean difference 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.74) and p = .03.All authors: DeKlotz CMC, Fernandez S, Kent RA, Prindeze N, Shupp JOriginally published: Dermatologic Surgery. 46(3):402-410, 2020 Mar.Fiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-07-09
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 30893164 Available 30893164

Available online from MWHC library: 1999 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the efficacy of lasers to minimize early surgical scars are low powered and report variable results. To further examine the evidence, the authors performed a systemic review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION: The outcome supports the efficacy of lasers in minimizing primarily closed surgical scars when treated <1 month after surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts, and Cochrane Library was performed between November 6, 2015, and November 20, 2015. After assessing for inclusion, data extraction used the PRISMA checklist. Assessment for quality, validity, and risk of bias applied a scale devised by Jadad and colleagues, the Oxford Pain Validity Scale, and the RevMan risk of bias assessment tool, respectively. The GRADEpro application graded overall quality, and statistical analysis was performed with RevMan.

OBJECTIVE: To present the evidence of randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of laser modalities in minimizing surgical scars when applied <1 month after operation.

RESULTS: Approximately 4,373/4,397 abstracts and 16/24 full articles were excluded using predefined criteria, leaving 8 articles in the systematic review and 4 in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome reached statistical significance favoring the intervention group with standardized mean difference 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.74) and p = .03.

English

Powered by Koha