| Objectives:To compare the efficacy and adverse events of photo ageing treatments with ablative and non ablative fractional lasers.Methods:Literature was retrieved in databases including PUBMED,ELSILVER,OVID and Cochrane library databases up to January 2019.Studies about fractional ablative lasers and/or fractional non ablative lasers for treatment of photo ageing were included and analyzed.Two team members independently extracted data and evaluated the quality of the study.Description of literature retrieved and A meta-analysis was performed using R i386 3.5.2 on ablative and non ablative fractional laser treatments of photo ageing.Result:Nineteen studies were included with 387 individual participants,Meta analysis of the studies and comparison shows that the heterogeneity test showing differences in articles is big so we used Randomized Effect model to analyze both the studies.Both studies were found to be symmetrical and publication bias was not as big that we cannot accept the studies for evaluation.AFL studies showed 14-73%of improvement rate where as NAFL studies showed 4-52%of improvement rate.According to the systemic review it is found that in all enrolled rejuvenation studies,patients in ablative fractional laser(AFL)group had significantly more adverse effects(AEs)than those patients in non ablative Fractional laser group.Because of the high risk and associated downtime,AFL is reserved for elderly patients with advanced photo damage.Limitations-A limitation of this study is the small number of fractional laser Articles published to treat for photo aging.Conclusions:This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that Ablative fractional laser therapy is more effective for treating photo aging than non ablative fractional laser therapy and that the incidence of AEs was tolerable.Therefore,Ablative fractional therapy should be considered an option for patients with Photo aging.However,there have been none RCTs on this subject and further studies are required. |
PDF Full Text Request