Post-Surgical ScarsEr:YAGNCT02397564
Treatment of Post-Surgical Scars With Traditional Ablative Er:YAG Versus Fractional Ablative Er:YAG
A study testing Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settings in people with Post-Surgical Scars, run by University of Louisville.
Trial summary
The investigators will compare the efficacy of Traditional Ablative Er:YAG Versus Fractional Ablative Er:YAG in a split scar study. The patient will receive a month treatment for 3 months. Then follow up for the next 2 months. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Post-Surgical Scars
- What is being tested?
- Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settings
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Mar 2015to Jul 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- over 8 weeks s/p scar
- linear closure
- visibly symmetric scar
- over 18 years old
Who cannot join
- concomitant treatment of involved skin
- propensity for keloid scarring
- use of oral retinoids for the past 1 year
- pregnancy
- immunosuppression
- prior laser to the area
About this study
The investigators will compare the efficacy of Traditional Ablative Er:YAG Versus Fractional Ablative Er:YAG in a split scar study. The patient will receive a month treatment for 3 months. Then follow up for the next 2 months.
Read the detailed description
Background: Scars are a common complaint of patients at presentation to a dermatology office. To optimize cosmetic results, the investigators propose to compare erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) laser therapy on two different settings: traditional ablative versus fractional ablative. A side to side comparison of split scars will be done to evaluate the two settings. Fractionated photothermolysis (fractional setting) has improved the field of laser surgery by allowing the surgery to target microscopic treatment zones (MTZ). MTZ's allow for cylinders of damage created by laser surgery to be surrounded by normal, unaffected skin. This acts as a reservoir for healing and allows for the microwounds created by laser treatment to heal quickly and with minimal discomfort.
Objective: To compare efficacy and cosmetic appearance of scars treated with Er:YAG ablative laser on traditional ablative resurfacing setting versus fractional ablative resurfacing setting.
Methods: 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. Pictures of the scar will be taken at a 45 degree and 90 degree angle at baseline, before each treatment, after each treatment, and at all follow up appointments. The patients will be blinded as to which side is treated with which laser setting. At the end of the trial, they will be offered the chance to have the side they felt had less improvement treated with the laser device that had been used on the contralateral side of the scar.
Results: A panel of three blinded dermatologists will evaluate the scar on a well-established five point grading scale for erythema, height and texture, and overall cosmetic outcome. The mean, standard deviation, and kappa values will be calculated. Patients will be asked the same scar evaluation questions as the panel as well as their overall satisfaction, how much pain was associated with the procedure, which laser they preferred, and would they recommend treatment to a friend or family member.
- Conditions
- Post-Surgical Scars
- Being tested
- Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settings
- Keywords
- scar, ICD-10 CM:L90.5
- Medical subject headings
- Cicatrix
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settingsDevice
Half the scar will be treated with traditional ablative setting and the other half will be treated with the fractional ablative setting
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | 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. Receives: Device: Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settings |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)
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.
Measured: 5 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Patient Preference
The number of patients who preferred the fractionated laser
Measured: 5 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Mar 2015 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2015
- Primary completionJul 2016
- Study completionJul 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Post-Surgical ScarsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of LouisvilleThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Louisville
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Timothy S Brown, MD, Principal investigator, University of Louisville
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02397564
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 14.1075
- Acronym
- Er:YAG
- Status last verified
- Jul 2017
- First submitted
- 4 Mar 2015
- Last updated
- 1 Aug 2017
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Aug 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Treatment of Post-Surgical Scars With Traditional Ablative Er:YAG Versus Fractional Ablative Er:YAG
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02397564
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Er:YAG / 14.1075
- Conditions
- Post-Surgical Scars
- Keywords
- scar, ICD-10 CM:L90.5
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LouisvilleUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Mar 2015
- Primary completion
- Jul 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Mar 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 2 Jul 2017
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators will compare the efficacy of Traditional Ablative Er:YAG Versus Fractional Ablative Er:YAG in a split scar study. The patient will receive a month treatment for 3 months. Then follow up for the next 2 months.
Detailed description
Background: Scars are a common complaint of patients at presentation to a dermatology office. To optimize cosmetic results, the investigators propose to compare erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) laser therapy on two different settings: traditional ablative versus fractional ablative. A side to side comparison of split scars will be done to evaluate the two settings. Fractionated photothermolysis (fractional setting) has improved the field of laser surgery by allowing the surgery to target microscopic treatment zones (MTZ). MTZ's allow for cylinders of damage created by laser surgery to be surrounded by normal, unaffected skin. This acts as a reservoir for healing and allows for the microwounds created by laser treatment to heal quickly and with minimal discomfort.
Objective: To compare efficacy and cosmetic appearance of scars treated with Er:YAG ablative laser on traditional ablative resurfacing setting versus fractional ablative resurfacing setting.
Methods: 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. Pictures of the scar will be taken at a 45 degree and 90 degree angle at baseline, before each treatment, after each treatment, and at all follow up appointments. The patients will be blinded as to which side is treated with which laser setting. At the end of the trial, they will be offered the chance to have the side they felt had less improvement treated with the laser device that had been used on the contralateral side of the scar.
Results: A panel of three blinded dermatologists will evaluate the scar on a well-established five point grading scale for erythema, height and texture, and overall cosmetic outcome. The mean, standard deviation, and kappa values will be calculated. Patients will be asked the same scar evaluation questions as the panel as well as their overall satisfaction, how much pain was associated with the procedure, which laser they preferred, and would they recommend treatment to a friend or family member.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Device: Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settingsEnroll 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- over 8 weeks s/p scar
- linear closure
- visibly symmetric scar
- over 18 years old
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- concomitant treatment of involved skin
- propensity for keloid scarring
- use of oral retinoids for the past 1 year
- pregnancy
- immunosuppression
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settingsHalf the scar will be treated with traditional ablative setting and the other half will be treated with the fractional ablative setting | Device | 1 |
Primary outcome
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)
Time frame: 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.
1 secondary outcome
Patient Preference
Time frame: 5 months
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Aug 2017.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Related trials for Post-Surgical Scars
Recruiting
Management of Abdominal Post-surgical Scar With Ozoaqua Versus Standard Care
Wound Healing, Abdominal Surgery
RecruitingPhase 2
Cleft Lip Scarring After Botox
Cleft Lip, Cleft Lip Scar
Active, not recruitingObservational study
NovoX®Cup as Primary Dressing After Breast Reduction
Wound Healing Disorder, Post-Surgical Complication
Recruiting
Impact of Early Physiotherapy on Pain, Quality of Life, Pelvic Floor Function, and Sexual Health Post-Episiotomy
Gynecological; Surgery (Previous), Causing Obstructed Labor
Not yet recruiting
Effect of an Intraoperative Polynucleotide Injection on Scar Quality After Thyroidectomy
Postoperative Surgical Scar, Scar
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Timothy S Brown, MD principal investigator
University of Louisville
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Er:YAG laser, traditional and fractional settings in people with Post-Surgical Scars, run by University of Louisville.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Aug 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 2 Jul 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) (time frame: 5 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Aug 2017.