Navigating Combined Laser Modalities Versus Monotherapy for Atrophic Acne and Postsurgical Scar Improvement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis
- 1Beijing Jishuitan Hospital Capital Medical University Beijing China
Abstract
Background: Combined laser protocols are increasingly used for atrophic acne and postsurgical scars, but no laser‐only network meta‐analysis has assessed these regimens within a focused laser‐versus‐laser framework.
Objective: To map randomized evidence for laser monotherapy and combined‐laser treatment, identify evidence gaps, and generate provisional treatment rankings.
Methods: PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through April 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing at least 2 laser modalities, either as monotherapy or in combination, for atrophic acne or postsurgical scars. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2.0, and a random‐effects frequentist network meta‐analysis synthesized standardized mean differences and P‐scores.
Results: Twenty‐six RCTs enrolling 771 participants across 14 laser nodes were included. Only 17 of 91 possible pairwise comparisons (19%) were supported by direct randomized evidence. The 4 combined‐laser regimens were each evaluated in a single RCT; the 5 trials contributing at least 1 combination‐versus‐monotherapy comparison enrolled 172 participants. The largest trial reported better Goodman‐Baron improvement with PDL plus nonablative fractional laser than with NAFL alone (standardized mean difference, approximately 0.56). In the main connected monotherapy network, picosecond Nd:YAG ranked highest (P‐score, 0.858), but certainty was very low. Overall risk of bias was low in 4 studies and showed some concerns in 22.
Conclusion: Evidence for combined‐laser scar treatment remains sparse and insufficient to recommend a specific dual‐laser regimen. This review mainly clarifies current evidence gaps and priorities for future comparative trials.
Related
- Chronic postsurgical pain following thyroidectomy : A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Perioperative intravenous lidocaine for the prevention of chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Evaluation of Acute Electrical and Hemodynamic Improvement During Left Bundle‐Branch Area Pacing Modalities for Resynchronization Therapy
- The preventive strategies for chronic persistent postsurgical pain following breast cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Comparative efficacy of digital health intervention delivery modalities on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{yang2026navigating,
title = {{Navigating Combined Laser Modalities Versus Monotherapy for Atrophic Acne and Postsurgical Scar Improvement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis}},
author = {Qiao Yang and Jue Wang and Kai Yang and Guoping Feng and Yan Liu and Chengcheng Li and Yang Liu and Jipeng Song and Linxiumei Guo},
journal = {Journal of cosmetic dermatology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1111/jocd.71230},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13720220},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Navigating Combined Laser Modalities Versus Monotherapy for Atrophic Acne and Postsurgical Scar Improvement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis
AU - Qiao Yang
AU - Jue Wang
AU - Kai Yang
AU - Guoping Feng
AU - Yan Liu
AU - Chengcheng Li
AU - Yang Liu
AU - Jipeng Song
AU - Linxiumei Guo
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/29
JO - Journal of cosmetic dermatology
DO - 10.1111/jocd.71230
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13720220
AB - Background: Combined laser protocols are increasingly used for atrophic acne and postsurgical scars, but no laser‐only network meta‐analysis has assessed these regimens within a focused laser‐versus‐laser framework. Objective: To map randomized evidence for laser monotherapy and combined‐laser treatment, identify evidence gaps, and generate provisional treatment rankings. Methods: PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through April 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing at least 2 laser modalities, either as monotherapy or in combination, for atrophic acne or postsurgical scars. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2.0, and a random‐effects frequentist network meta‐analysis synthesized standardized mean differences and P‐scores. Results: Twenty‐six RCTs enrolling 771 participants across 14 laser nodes were included. Only 17 of 91 possible pairwise comparisons (19%) were supported by direct randomized evidence. The 4 combined‐laser regimens were each evaluated in a single RCT; the 5 trials contributing at least 1 combination‐versus‐monotherapy comparison enrolled 172 participants. The largest trial reported better Goodman‐Baron improvement with PDL plus nonablative fractional laser than with NAFL alone (standardized mean difference, approximately 0.56). In the main connected monotherapy network, picosecond Nd:YAG ranked highest (P‐score, 0.858), but certainty was very low. Overall risk of bias was low in 4 studies and showed some concerns in 22. Conclusion: Evidence for combined‐laser scar treatment remains sparse and insufficient to recommend a specific dual‐laser regimen. This review mainly clarifies current evidence gaps and priorities for future comparative trials.
SN - 1473-2130
SN - 1473-2165
ER -