SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Platelet-rich plasma and ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser therapy for chronic scar management: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Scarring following acne, burns, and trauma remains a significant clinical and psychosocial challenge. Despite increasing clinical use, there is no consensus on the efficacy and safety of Ablative Fractional CO₂ Laser (AFCL) combined with Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) across scar aetiologies. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of AFCL with PRP for chronic acne, traumatic, and burn scars. Methods MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase (Ovid) were searched to 1 September 2025 using terms related to scars, fractional CO₂ laser, and platelet-rich plasma. Eligible studies included human subjects treated with AFCL (10,600 nm) and autologous PRP delivered topically or intradermally. Studies using platelet-rich fibrin, PRP gel, or non-synchronous administration were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Results Seventeen studies (n = 420) met inclusion criteria. Nine (53%) were randomised studies, six (29%) non-randomised, and two (12%) retrospective. AFCL settings ranged from 10 to 30 W, dwell times 0.1–1.54 ms, and spot spacing 0.5–2.0 mm. PRP was predominantly prepared via double-spin centrifugation and delivered topically (47%) or intradermally (59%). AFCL+PRP showed superior efficacy to AFCL alone, with significant improvements in scar texture, pigmentation, erythema, and depth. Patient satisfaction was consistently higher with combination therapy, and topical PRP notably reduced downtime, suggesting accelerated repair and modulated inflammation. Conclusions AFCL combined with PRP enhances scar remodelling and patient outcomes while reducing complications. Heterogeneity in laser parameters, PRP preparation, and outcome measures limits direct comparison. Robust multicentre randomised trials are needed to establish parameter-specific guidelines for AFCL-PRP therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.