Scoping review examines clinical outcomes from laser-assisted drug delivery in hypertrophic scars, highlighting variability in studies.
Fractional ablative laser is a minimally invasive method of hypertrophic scar management first introduced in 2004. Laser technologies and techniques have continued to evolve since that time and have included the addition of laser-assisted drug delivery to augment the effects of the laser on scars. Laser-assisted drug delivery is increasingly reported in the literature and standard treatment protocols, underscoring the popularity of this technique among clinicians. Given this popularity, it is important to scrutinise evidence relating to the clinical outcomes laser-assisted drug delivery may achieve for patients. This scoping review examined literature relating to laser-assisted drug delivery for the treatment of hypertrophic scars in humans, aiming to clarify what clinical outcomes are achieved with its use and examining how these outcomes were studied and measured. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, theWHO International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched, and data about study methodology, outcome measurement tools and results were extracted. Fifty-five publications that discussed laser-assisted drug delivery for the treatment of hypertrophic scars in humans were identified. Sixteen different substances, most frequently corticosteroids, were used for laser-assisted drug delivery treatment of hypertrophic scars, most often in conjunction with a carbon dioxide fractional ablative laser. Study designs, outcome measurement strategies and follow-up time-frames were highly variable, as were the patient outcomes achieved. The clinical outcomes achieved with laser-assisted drug delivery are unclear, largely due to the variability of study methodology and outcome measurement. The efficacy of this technique requires further investigation with robustly designed, large trials which have comparison groups and use validated scar outcome measurement tools.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maria et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: