Just keep in mind - for each study the types of scars and treatment parameters could be different:
Erbium Lasers:
Fractional CO2 Lasers:
We statistically compared the improvement (in%) between the studies using NAFR and AFR lasers, excluding the studies where various modalities were combined.The mean improvement of NAFR (50.2%) was better than that of AFR (42.62%). This paradoxical result with NAFR though is based on subjective assessment. The only study that evaluated objective improvementwith AFR showed a mean improvement in scar volume by 38% with a scar reduction of 35.6%. This gives a realistic improvement that can be achieved by probably the most effective fractional laser technology at present.
AFR = co2, NAFR = erbium
So realistically speaking, if using high settings after 3 treatments - you can get 40-50% improvement.
And a good read about lasers if anyone is interested:
As I have said Fraxel Re:pair is a cumulative process. I wish they would have specified the exact mj settings. I would consider the lower settings to be ineffective for all but the most minimal scars. As for lasers being too harsh, I have been treated 5 times at the 70mj - 60% setting with no after effects. I have found NOTHING that worked except Fraxel Re:pair.
As I have said Fraxel Re:pair is a cumulative process. I wish they would have specified the exact mj settings. I would consider the lower settings to be ineffective for all but the most minimal scars. As for lasers being too harsh, I have been treated 5 times at the 70mj - 60% setting with no after effects. I have found NOTHING that worked except Fraxel Re:pair.
Did you notice under some of the Repair studies, they used up to 100mJ/pulse.
But, I thought 70mJ was the absolute max safe setting limit.
If you look at the study by Chan et al., they used the standard safe settings of max 70mj, with max coverage of 45%, but the improvement was only mild to moderate compared to the study that used 100mj/pulse. (Chans study was also only 1 sitting compared to 2-3 for the other, so that obviously is a factor also).
Did anyone else catch that? Can repair really be used at 100mj safely?
Did you notice under some of the Repair studies, they used up to 100mJ/pulse.
But, I thought 70mJ was the absolute max safe setting limit.
If you look at the study by Chan et al., they used the standard safe settings of max 70mj, with max coverage of 45%, but the improvement was only mild to moderate compared to the study that used 100mj/pulse. (Chans study was also only 1 sitting compared to 2-3 for the other, so that obviously is a factor also).
Did anyone else catch that? Can repair really be used at 100mj safely?
My guess is that those were the studies that determined that 70mj had the best risk/result ratio (since they were done in 2008-09 and in order of date done). Those were the first 3 studies done on fractional co2. But then again the MJ setting mainly controls depth, so it might be safe? Chan's study is only one treatment however - I don't think ~20% is a bad result for 1 laser session as long as the next one gives a similar result. The main thing that was interesting to me was that the erbium lasers had similar results to co2 ones.
Based on everything I've researched/read I think laser results are unpredictable, anywhere from 10-70% after 3 treatments. However the general "range" would be imo ~40% after 2-3 aggressive fractional co2 treatments. I just posted this to counter everyone that says "lasers don't work"
What also surprises me is that more doctors don't do this - http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/326346-targeting-acne-scars-specifically-with-laser/#entry3328116
Good point on the date of the studies. The whole secret to lasers is multiple treatments at high settings. Anybody who thinks they can get a one and done treatment and be satisfied might as well try some of the snake oil cures they read about. The way Re:pair has changed my life is priceless.
Did you notice under some of the Repair studies, they used up to 100mJ/pulse.
But, I thought 70mJ was the absolute max safe setting limit.
If you look at the study by Chan et al., they used the standard safe settings of max 70mj, with max coverage of 45%, but the improvement was only mild to moderate compared to the study that used 100mj/pulse. (Chans study was also only 1 sitting compared to 2-3 for the other, so that obviously is a factor also).
Did anyone else catch that? Can repair really be used at 100mj safely?
My guess is that those were the studies that determined that 70mj had the best risk/result ratio (since they were done in 2008-09 and in order of date done). Those were the first 3 studies done on fractional co2. But then again the MJ setting mainly controls depth, so it might be safe? Chan's study is only one treatment however - I don't think ~20% is a bad result for 1 laser session as long as the next one gives a similar result. The main thing that was interesting to me was that the erbium lasers had similar results to co2 ones.
Based on everything I've researched/read I think laser results are unpredictable, anywhere from 10-70% after 3 treatments. However the general "range" would be imo ~40% after 2-3 aggressive fractional co2 treatments. I just posted this to counter everyone that says "lasers don't work"
What also surprises me is that more doctors don't do this -