So this was an article from October of last year, which isn't that long ago. The dermatologist was saying that he thinks this is the best way to treat scarring that is not severe and widespread. It makes since to me since the operator would just essentially be doing spot treatments on each scar instead of doing the whole face, allowing them to set the laser frequency higher than normal to obtain optimal results. The only downside I see is its only for those with minimal scarring and I think it would be hard to find someone to do it since most of the profit comes from doing the whole face. I thought it was an interesting read and wanted to share it with anyone who has not come across it already.
Surprised someone finally actually posted a study instead of some bullshit article. That being said it is on a derm site. That's a pretty big bias. That being said I got a bit giddy when I read "40 to 70%." Then I came back to reality when I saw the pics. That is not 40 to 70% improvement. Sorry. In the third round of pics that man seems as though he RECEIVED PIH from the damn treatment. He has all these red patches that he did not have prior. That's not to mention all pics taken were taken in different lighting. Very, very bad science, if you can call squinting at a pic and subjectively estimating a percentage improvement "science." Initially I was happy to see what seemed to be a study. By the end I was just disappointed in myself for expectations of a possible breakthrough.
To summarize, here's the issues:
1. Only did it on six patients (try 100+ and MAYBE we can talk about this study holding any credibility)
2. Overestimated improvements
3. Quite Biased - Every writeup is biased, but this one is just pathetic. It was performed by a doctor for the purpose of increasing business. Has incentive to have a biased paper, and so that is what occured.
4. The pictures that the biased party themselves decided to reveal, which were likely the best three of the six, were still terribly disappointing.
Bottom line? Fraxel/CO2 lasers are bullshit. I have never heard a single positive review from any patient, ever. They're expensive, have a decent down time of about 3 days, and god damn are they painful. Oh, and the extra bonus is you can totally break the hell out post treatment. Yay! You thought there was only three terrible features, but there are actually 4! So you're down about a grand or more for full face, you're hurting like a mofo with your face swole up popping percs, and later on you get to have more acne, which puts you right back to square one. To boot, no improvement in marks/scarring. If anything you might even see PIH as a DIRECT RESULT of the treatment itself, like patient #3 on the pics.
Yeah I did notice the lighting and camera angle differences in one of the sets of photos. Thank you that's the best response I have ever gotten on this site. I agree with you on alot of things but I'm still a little optimistic for this MAYBE becoming an option for my minor (literally three scars). You brought up several points that I did not think of before hand which helped out alot when trying to feel for the authenticity of this article. I think I'll keep my eye on it for awhile and see if it becomes more popular.
Yeah I did notice the lighting and camera angle differences in one of the sets of photos. Thank you that's the best response I have ever gotten on this site. I agree with you on alot of things but I'm still a little optimistic for this MAYBE becoming an option for my minor (literally three scars). You brought up several points that I did not think of before hand which helped out alot when trying to feel for the authenticity of this article. I think I'll keep my eye on it for awhile and see if it becomes more popular.
I've gotten a few people who tell me that. It's quite a shame this is supposedly the number one acne board on the net and the type of responses you usually get to very important questions are one sentence answers with no picture evidence or patient testimony to back them up. There's a few of us here who seem to actually give a shit. Hopefully we can help each other. I'm here for the long haul. The second I'm fixed up, you'll hear about it.
Ah that's so good to hear. I'm the same way and even after I feel comfortable and I know I've reached my max improvement, I will still be here to interact with the community and give my input as best as possible. I'm hopeful for a new revolutionary way to obtain definite and consist improvement in scarring. Just ANYTHING to help some of these people out who have to go through this. If anything good came out of this acne problem of mine, it's that I've been looking into studying the field of dermatology, instead of moping about my skin.
Yeah I did notice the lighting and camera angle differences in one of the sets of photos. Thank you that's the best response I have ever gotten on this site. I agree with you on alot of things but I'm still a little optimistic for this MAYBE becoming an option for my minor (literally three scars). You brought up several points that I did not think of before hand which helped out alot when trying to feel for the authenticity of this article. I think I'll keep my eye on it for awhile and see if it becomes more popular.
I've gotten a few people who tell me that. It's quite a shame this is supposedly the number one acne board on the net and the type of responses you usually get to very important questions are one sentence answers with no picture evidence or patient testimony to back them up. There's a few of us here who seem to actually give a shit. Hopefully we can help each other. I'm here for the long haul. The second I'm fixed up, you'll hear about it.
Well these boards weren't always so mediocre. It's definitely been on a downward slide since a lot of really smart contributors have moved one. The other reason is that there hasn't been that many new developments in the field. When fractional lasers came out a few years ago, of course there was a lot of buzz and conversation, but progress in the science of treating scars has not progressed much.
And in regards to this doctor, he's really not doing anything new. I"m not sure this was a proper study. It's presented cleverly as a study, but really it's just marketing and him branding a technique. I've seen some shameless docs branding subcision ( a very well known, very common procedure) as "scar release" or some ish like that. They try to make it seem like they're offering some proprietary new scar revision technique. Most people are clueless and naive, so don't realize it's just clever marketing.
somanyquestions - I'm with you on the quality of this board. Too many people demand anectodal evidence about what they "should do" and plunge into treatments without really doing the research. Don't get me wrong - I like to hear the experiences of people who have had treatments (realself) but we need to be working together to understand the science behind wound healing, the variables that increase risks, as well as updating on clinical trials and uncovering biases. I've largely moved on to essentialdayspa where the conversation is much more elevated. We need to be spending more time on pubmed and less on sites promoting a specific derm.
