Trial Outcomes & Findings for Treatment of Post-Surgical Scars With Traditional Ablative Er:YAG Versus Fractional Ablative Er:YAG (NCT NCT02397564)

NCT ID: NCT02397564

Last Updated: 2017-08-01

Results Overview

It uses a 10-point scoring system with a score of 1 representing a normal-appearing skin and a score of 10 representing the worst possible scar. Total scores range from 6 to 60 with the lower score indicate a better outcome.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

20 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

5 months

Results posted on

2017-08-01

Participant Flow

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Intervention Group
Enroll 20 patients for nonsurgical treatment of surgical scars. Half of each scar will be treated with the Er:YAG laser on the traditional ablative setting and the other half of the scar will receive Er:YAG treatment with the fractional ablative setting. The patients will receive 3 treatments at monthly intervals. They will follow up at 1 and 2 months after the treatment. Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settings: Half the scar will be treated with traditional ablative setting and the other half will be treated with the fractional ablative setting
Overall Study
STARTED
20
Overall Study
COMPLETED
16
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
4

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Treatment of Post-Surgical Scars With Traditional Ablative Er:YAG Versus Fractional Ablative Er:YAG

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Treatment Group
n=20 Participants
Enroll 20 patients for nonsurgical treatment of surgical scars. Half of each scar will be treated with the Er:YAG laser on the traditional ablative setting and the other half of the scar will receive Er:YAG treatment with the fractional ablative setting. The patients will receive 3 treatments at monthly intervals. They will follow up at 1 and 2 months after the treatment. Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settings: Half the scar will be treated with traditional ablative setting and the other half will be treated with the fractional ablative setting
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
19 Participants
n=5 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
1 Participants
n=5 Participants
Age, Continuous
46 years
n=5 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
20 Participants
n=5 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
20 participants
n=5 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: 5 months

It uses a 10-point scoring system with a score of 1 representing a normal-appearing skin and a score of 10 representing the worst possible scar. Total scores range from 6 to 60 with the lower score indicate a better outcome.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Treatment Group
n=16 Participants
Subjects receiving treatment for scar
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)
Physician Fully Ablative Laser
17.69 units on a scale
Standard Error 2.03
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)
Physician Fractionated Laser
11.2 units on a scale
Standard Error 2.03
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)
Patients Fully Ablative Laser
15.2 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.58
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)
Patients Fractionated Laser
11.4 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.58

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 5 months

Population: Those who expressed a preference.

The number of patients who preferred the fractionated laser

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Treatment Group
n=16 Participants
Subjects receiving treatment for scar
Patient Preference
15 Participants

Adverse Events

Treatment Group

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

W. James Tidwell

University of Louisville

Phone: 5025831749

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place