Vol. 7, Issue 1, Part A (2025)

Background: Acne vulgaris frequently leads to scarring, causing significant psychosocial effects and requiring effective treatments. Acne scars, categorized as depressed, raised, or hyperpigmented, are often treated with laser therapy, including traditional CO₂ laser resurfacing and fractional CO₂ laser feathering. This study compares the efficacy, procedural efficiency, patient satisfaction, downtime, and complication rates of CO₂ fractional laser feathering versus traditional methods for acne scar treatment.

Methods: This prospective study, conducted at a private dermatology clinic in Baghdad over six months (February 1, 2024, to August 30, 2024), compared CO₂ fractional laser feathering and traditional CO₂ laser methods for treating moderate to severe acne scars. Twenty participants were randomly assigned to either group, with inclusion criteria requiring Fitzpatrick skin types II-IV and exclusion criteria excluding active acne or recent treatments. The SK Eily CO₂ Laser was used with precise parameters (15 watts, 4-second pulse duration, 1-second intervals, and 0.8 mm stack distance) to minimize thermal damage and optimize outcomes. The treatment protocol included three sessions spaced one month apart, with follow-ups at one week and one-month post-treatment to assess scar improvement, complications, downtime, and patient satisfaction. Validated tools like the Goodman and Baron’s Quantitative and Qualitative Acne Scar Grading System and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used for data collection. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, with p< 0.05 considered significant.

Results: Showed balanced demographic characteristics between groups (p>0.05). The feathering technique demonstrated shorter session durations (30.1 ± 4.8 vs. 45.3 ± 5.2 minutes, p=0.001), reduced treatment time (4.2 ± 0.9 vs. 6.5 ± 1.1 weeks, p=0.000), and higher patient satisfaction (8.9 ± 1.05 vs. 6.8 ± 1.32, p=0.002). Both methods improved acne scores similarly (p>0.05), but feathering had significantly shorter downtime (4.8 ± 0.63 vs. 9.2 ± 1.23 days, p=0.000). Feathering also resulted in fewer complications (erythema: 30% vs. 80%, p=0.012; hyperpigmentation: 20% vs. 60%, p=0.025; scarring: 0% vs. 30%, p=0.021) and lower pain levels (4.5 ± 0.9 vs. 7.2 ± 1.1, p=0.000).

In conclusion: The CO₂ Feathering laser outperforms the CO₂ Traditional laser in efficiency, safety, and patient satisfaction, offering shorter sessions, reduced downtime, lower pain levels, and fewer complications like erythema, hyperpigmentation, and scarring. While both techniques improve acne scores equally, the Feathering laser’s superior profile makes it a preferred clinical option for acne scar treatment.