Outcomes and adverse effects of ablative vs nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing: A systematic review of 1093 patients

Abstract

It is generally believed that ablative laser therapies result in prolonged healing and greater adverse events when compared with nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing. To evaluate the efficacy of ablative laser use for skin resurfacing and adverse events as a consequence of treatment in comparison to other modalities, a PRISMA‐compliant systematic review (Systematic Review Registration Number: 204016) of twelve electronic databases was conducted for the terms “ablative laser” and “skin resurfacing” from March 2002 until July 2020. Studies included meta‐analyses, randomized control trials, cohort studies, and case reports to facilitate evaluation of the data. All articles were evaluated for bias. The search strategy produced 34 studies. Of 1093 patients included in the studies of interest, adverse events were reported in a total of 106 patients (9.7%). Higher rates of adverse events were described in nonablative therapies (12.2% ± 2.19%, 31 events) when compared with ablative therapy (8.28% ± 2.46%, 81 events). 147 patients (13.4%) reported no side effects, 68 (6.22%) reported expected, transient self‐resolving events, and five (0.046%) presented with hypertrophic scarring. Excluding transient events, ablative lasers had fewer complications overall when compared with nonablative lasers (2.56% ± 2.19% vs 7.48% ± 3.29%). This systematic review suggests ablative laser use for skin resurfacing is a safe and effective modality to treat a range of pathologies from photodamage and acne scars to hidradenitis suppurativa and posttraumatic scarring from basal cell carcinoma excision. Further studies are needed, but these results suggest that ablative lasers are a superior, safe, and effective modality to treat damaged skin.