Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Fractional Laser and Fractional Radiofrequency for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Retrospective Propensity Score Analysis
Issued Date
2025-09-01
Resource Type
eISSN
20751729
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105017383450
Journal Title
Life
Volume
15
Issue
9
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Life Vol.15 No.9 (2025)
Suggested Citation
Yan C., Phinyo P., Yogya Y., Chuamanochan M., Wanitphakdeedecha R. Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Fractional Laser and Fractional Radiofrequency for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Retrospective Propensity Score Analysis. Life Vol.15 No.9 (2025). doi:10.3390/life15091379 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/112468
Title
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Fractional Laser and Fractional Radiofrequency for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Retrospective Propensity Score Analysis
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Fractional laser (FL) and fractional radiofrequency (FRF) are effective treatments for atrophic acne scars, yet comparative data in Asian populations with darker skin types remain limited. This retrospective cohort study compared the clinical effectiveness and safety of FL and FRF in Thai patients aged 18–60 years with Fitzpatrick skin types III–IV who underwent at least two treatment sessions between 2012 and 2023. Baseline characteristics were balanced using propensity score stratification, and missing data were addressed through multiple imputation with chained equations. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥25% improvement in scarring at 6 months, with equivalence testing performed using a 20% margin. A total of 397 patients (254 FL, 143 FRF) were included, with balanced baseline characteristics after stratification. At 6 months, 88.1% of FRF-treated and 71.9% of FL-treated patients achieved the primary endpoint. FRF showed numerically greater mean improvement at all time points, though differences were not statistically significant. FL met the non-inferiority criterion but not equivalence. FRF was associated with significantly higher pain scores (p < 0.001), while adverse events, including post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, were rare and similar between groups. Both modalities demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit and acceptable safety, although statistical equivalence could not be established and FRF was associated with greater procedural discomfort.