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.

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.