Comparative Outcomes of Laser Therapy vs. Surgical Excision for Facial Skin Lesions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v13i1.8986Keywords:
Laser therapy, Surgical excision, Facial skin lesions, Postoperative outcomes, Scar formation, Cosmetic dermatologyAbstract
Background: To compare the clinical outcomes of laser therapy and surgical excision in the treatment of facial skin lesions with a focus on healing time, postoperative discomfort, scar formation, and patient satisfaction.
Methods: A prospective comparative study was conducted from April 2022 to June 2023 involving 69 patients with facial skin lesions. Participants were treated with either laser therapy (n=35) or surgical excision (n=34). Demographic and clinical data were recorded. Outcomes such as pain scores, healing duration, scar formation, and patient satisfaction were assessed and compared using appropriate statistical tests.
Results: Patients in the laser group reported significantly lower postoperative pain (p < 0.001), faster healing time (p < 0.001), and reduced scar formation (p < 0.001) compared to the surgical group. Satisfaction scores were also higher among those who underwent laser treatment (p < 0.001). Although recurrence rates were slightly higher in the laser group, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.654).
Conclusion: Laser therapy appears to be a more favorable option for managing benign facial skin lesions, offering advantages in terms of patient comfort, recovery, and cosmetic outcome. Surgical excision remains important for cases requiring complete lesion removal or histopathological evaluation
Downloads
Metrics
References
Mirza, H.N., F.N. Mirza, and K.A.J.D.t. Khatri, Outcomes and adverse effects of ablative vs nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing: a systematic review of 1093 patients. 2021. 34(1): p. e14432.
Seirafianpour, F., 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. 2022. 37(4): p. 2111-2122.
Sharon, E., et al., Laser treatment for non-melanoma skin cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2021. 22(1): p. 25-38.
Kang, B.Y., et al., Treatment of surgical scars with combination pulsed dye and fractional nonablative laser: a randomized controlled trial. 2022, LWW.
Tuan, H., et al., a comparison of efficacy and safety of fractional carbon dioxide laser and fractional Er: YAG laser for the treatment of Xanthelasma palpebrarum: a two-center randomized split-face controlled trial. 2021. 39(2): p. 131-136.
Meynköhn, A., et al., Fractional ablative carbon dioxide laser treatment of facial scars: Improvement of patients' quality of life, scar quality, and cosmesis. 2021. 20(7): p. 2132-2140.
Arias, F., et al., A Prospective Comparison of Patient Reported Outcomes After Facial Laser Resurfacing. 2021: p. 10.1097.
Soliman, M., et al., Comparative study between Nd‐YAG laser, fractional CO2 laser, and combined Nd‐YAG with fractional CO2 laser in the management of keloid: clinical and molecular study. 2021. 20(4): p. 1124-1132.
Miletta, N., et al., Fractional ablative laser therapy is an effective treatment for hypertrophic burn scars: a prospective study of objective and subjective outcomes. 2021. 274(6): p. e574-e580.
Hu, S., M. Atmakuri, and J.J.A.S.J. Rosenberg, Adverse events of nonablative lasers and energy-based therapies in subjects with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes IV to VI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022. 42(5): p. 537-547.
Mahajan, S., et al., A retrospective comparative study of outcome with surgical excision and repair versus nonsurgical and ablative treatments for basal cell carcinoma. 2021. 87(3): p. 348-356.
Al-Dhalimi, M.A., Z.J.J.o.C. Dahham, and L. Therapy, Split-face clinical comparative study of fractional Er: YAG (2940nm) laser versus long pulsed Nd: YAG (1064nm) laser in treatment of atrophic acne scar. 2021. 23(1-2): p. 35-40.
Zhang, J., et al., Efficacy of fractional CO2 laser therapy combined with hyaluronic acid dressing for treating facial atrophic acne scars: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. 2023. 38(1): p. 214.
Shi, Y., et al., Comparison of fractionated frequency-doubled 1,064/532 nm picosecond Nd: YAG lasers and non-ablative fractional 1,540 nm Er: glass in the treatment of facial atrophic scars: a randomized, split-face, double-blind trial. 2021. 9(10): p. 862.
Ungaksornpairote, C., et al., A prospective, split-face, randomized study comparing picosecond to Q-switched Nd: YAG laser for treatment of epidermal and dermal pigmented lesions in Asians. 2020. 46(12): p. 1671-1675.
Zhao, Z., et al., To evaluate the efficacy and safety of laser interventions for facial acne scars: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. 2022. 10(24): p. 1396.
Nammour, S., et al., Aesthetic treatment outcomes of capillary hemangioma, venous lake, and venous malformation of the lip using different surgical procedures and laser wavelengths (Nd: YAG, Er, Cr: YSGG, CO2, and diode 980 nm). 2020. 17(22): p. 8665.
Park, S., et al., A randomized split‐face comparative study of long‐pulsed alexandrite plus low‐fluence Nd: YAG laser versus pulsed‐dye laser in the treatment of rosacea. 2022. 54(9): p. 1217-1225.
Dai, R., et al., Comparison of 1064-nm Nd: YAG picosecond laser using fractional micro-lens array vs. ablative fractional 2940-nm Er: YAG laser for the treatment of atrophic acne scar in Asians: a 20-week prospective, randomized, split-face, controlled pilot study. 2023. 10: p. 1248831.
Zhang, M., et al., Comparison of 1064‐nm and dual‐wavelength (532/1064‐nm) picosecond‐domain Nd: YAG lasers in the treatment of facial photoaging: a randomized controlled split‐face study. 2021. 53(9): p. 1158-1165.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
