Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy, safety, and satisfaction between ablative and non-ablative lasers in facial and hand rejuvenation/resurfacing

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Lasers in Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Skin aging inevitably begins from the very early days of life. The lasers used in skin rejuvenation are mainly of two types: ablative and non-ablative. This meta-analysis aimed at comparing ablative with non-ablative lasers in terms of their efficacy and safety in skin rejuvenation. Articles published by March 15, 2020 in Embase, Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, and clinicalTrials.gov were searched. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in English using ablative and non-ablative lasers and comparing their safety and efficiency in wrinkle improvement and photoaging therapy. Out of 1353 extracted articles, 11 were selected for qualitative synthesis and of these, 4 were quantitatively analyzed. Different modes of various lasers were implemented; the ablative lasers included Erbium: yttrium–aluminium-garnet (Er:YAG) and CO2, besides the non-ablative lasers, comprised Ytterbium/Erbium, Erbium: Glass, neodymium: yttrium–aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG), and alexandrite. Pooled analyses on 124 participants showed insignificant differences between ablative and non-ablative lasers in the likelihood of excellent improvement with an odds ratio of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.24, 2.83). The analyses also showed good improvement with an odds ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.44, 1.78), fair improvement with an odds ratio of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.56, 2.26) and side effects with an odds ratio of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.43, 1.56). The efficacy and safety of ablative laser were not higher than those of non-ablative laser in skin rejuvenation. Given the small samples of the included articles, it is recommended that further high-quality RCTs be conducted using larger samples to confirm this conclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yaar M, Gilchrest BA (2007) Photoageing: mechanism, prevention and therapy. Br J Dermatol 157:874–887

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gilchrest BA (2013) Photoaging. J Investig Dermatol 133:E2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Battie C, Jitsukawa S, Bernerd F, Del Bino S, Marionnet C, Verschoore M (2014) New insights in photoaging, UVA induced damage and skin types. Exp Dermatol 23:7–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sieber DA, Kenkel JM (2018) Noninvasive methods for lower facial rejuvenation. Clin Plast Surg 45:571–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hamilton M, Campbell A, Holcomb JD (2018) Contemporary laser and light-based rejuvenation techniques. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 26:113–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson DL, Paletta F (2016) Skin resurfacing procedures of the upper face. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 24:117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Weiss RA, McDaniel DH, Geronemus RG (2003) Review of nonablative photorejuvenation: reversal of the aging effects of the sun and environmental damage using laser and light sources. Semin Cutan Med Surgery 22:93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JAC, Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DerSimonian R, Laird N (2015) Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials 45:139–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cochran WG (1950) The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 37:256–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sterne JAC, Egger M (2001) Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1046–1055

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Karsai S, Czarnecka A, Jünger M, Raulin C (2010) Ablative fractional lasers (CO(2) and Er:YAG): A randomized controlled double-blind split-face trial of the treatment of peri-orbital rhytides. Lasers Surg Med 42:160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee YB, Shin JY, Cheon MS, Oh ST, Cho BK, Park HJ (2012) Photorejuvenation using long-pulsed alexandrite and long-pulsed neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers: A pilot study of clinical outcome and patients’ satisfaction in Koreans. J Dermatol 39:425–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Somoano B, Hantash BM, Fincher EF, Wu P, Gladstone HB (2011) The erbium micropeel: A prospective, randomized trial of the effects of two fluence settings on facial photoaging. J Drugs Dermatol 10:179–185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo YJ, Xu XG, Wu Y, Xu TH, Chen JZS, Gao XH, Chen HD, Li YH (2012) Split-face comparison of ultrapulse-mode and superpulse-mode fractionated carbon dioxide lasers on photoaged skin. J Drugs Dermatol 11:1310–1314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wattanakrai P, Pootongkam S, Rojhirunsakool S (2012) Periorbital rejuvenation with fractional 1,550-nm ytterbium/erbium fiber laser and variable square pulse 2,940-nm erbium:YAG laser in Asians: a comparison study. Dermatol Surg 38:610–622

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. El-Domyati M, Abd-El-Raheem T, Abdel-Wahab H, Medhat W, Hosam W, El-Fakahany H, Anwer MA (2013) Fractional versus ablative erbium:yttrium-Aluminum-garnet laser resurfacing for facial rejuvenation: An objective evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol 68:103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moon HR, Yun WJ, Lee YJ, Lee MW, Chang S (2015) A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of an ablative fractional 2940-nm erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser with a nonablative fractional 1550-nm erbium-doped glass laser for the treatment of photoaged Asian skin. J Dermatol Treat 26:551–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Robati RM, Asadi E (2017) Efficacy and safety of fractional CO2 laser versus fractional Er:YAG laser in the treatment of facial skin wrinkles. Lasers Med Sci 32:283–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dadkhahfar S, Fadakar K, Robati RM (2019) Efficacy and safety of long pulse Nd:YAG laser versus fractional erbium:YAG laser in the treatment of facial skin wrinkles. Lasers Med Sci 34:457–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yim S, Lee YH, Choi YJ, Kim WS (2020) Split-face comparison of the picosecond 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser using a microlens array and the quasi-long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser for treatment of photoaging facial wrinkles and pores in Asians. Lasers Med Sci 35:949–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Robati RM, Asadi E, Shafiee A, Namazi N, Talebi A (2018) Efficacy of long pulse Nd:YAG laser versus fractional Er:YAG laser in the treatment of hand wrinkles. Lasers Med Sci 33:461–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Seirafianpour F, Sodagar S, Mozafarpoor S, Baradaran HR, Panahi P, Hassanlouei B, Goodarzi A (2021) Systematic review of single and combined treatments for different types of striae: A comparison of striae treatments. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 35:2185–2198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Goodarzi A, Behrangi E, Ghassemi M, Nobari NN, Sadeghzadeh-Bazargan A, Roohaninasab M (2020) Acne scar; a review of classification and treatment. J Crit Rev 7:1108–1114

    Google Scholar 

  27. Golnaz M, Mahrokh F, Azadeh G, Forghani SF, Rohaninasab M, Ghassemi SS, Behrangi E (2019) Comparison of the therapeutic effect of microneedling with carbon dioxide laser in hypertrophic burn scars: a randomized clinical trial. Iranian J Dermatol 22:53–57

    Google Scholar 

  28. Behrangi E, Goodarzi A, Roohaninasab M, Sadeghzadeh-Bazargan A, Nobari NN, Ghassemi M (2020) A review of scar treatment related to acne and burn. J Crit Rev 7:714–722

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the authorities of Rasool Akram Medical Complex Clinical Research Development Center (RCRDC) for their technical and editorial assistance.

Funding

This study was methodologically and technically supported by the Systematic Review Center of Iran University of Medical Sciences and the Rasool Akram Medical Complex Clinical Research Development Center (RCRDC; nevertheless, this systematic review was not financially supported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Farnoosh Seirafianpour, Arash Pour Mohammad & Parsa Panahi

  2. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran

    Yousef Moradi

  3. Students’ Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Hojat Dehghanbanadaki

  4. Department of Dermatology, Rasool Akram Medical Complex Clinical Research Development Center (RCRDC), School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Azadeh Goodarzi

  5. Skin and Stem Cell Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Azadeh Goodarzi

  6. Department of Dermatology, Skin Diseases and Leishmaniasis Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

    Samaneh Mozafarpoor

Authors
  1. Farnoosh Seirafianpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arash Pour Mohammad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yousef Moradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hojat Dehghanbanadaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Parsa Panahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Azadeh Goodarzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Samaneh Mozafarpoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.G designed the study, F.S searched the databases, F.S and A.P screened the initial search results and extracted data from the included studies, Y.S and H.D performed the meta-analysis, A.G, F.S, A.P, and P.P wrote the final manuscript and all the authors extensively contributed to the final draft of this manuscript. A.G and P.P also edited the document.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Azadeh Goodarzi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

No ethical approval or consents were required for the development of this review.

Informed consent

Not applicable for review paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36.3 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seirafianpour, F., Pour Mohammad, A., Moradi, Y. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy, safety, and satisfaction between ablative and non-ablative lasers in facial and hand rejuvenation/resurfacing. Lasers Med Sci 37, 2111–2122 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03516-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03516-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation