# Fractional CO2 Laser Versus Micro Needling Radiofrequency for Post Acne Scarring: A Meta‐Analysis of RCTs

## TL;DR

This study compares two treatments for acne scars, finding that fractional CO2 laser works better but causes more pain and side effects than microneedling radiofrequency.

## Contribution

A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of FCL and MNRF for post-acne scarring using RCT data.

## Key findings

- FCL showed better acne scar improvement and patient satisfaction than MNRF.
- FCL caused higher pain, more post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and longer erythema duration.
- MNRF had a more favorable safety profile despite lower efficacy.

## Abstract

Post‐acne scarring is a prevalent dermatological concern with significant impact on quality of life. Fractional CO2 laser (FCL) and microneedling radiofrequency (MNRF) are widely used treatments, but their comparative efficacy and safety require further synthesis.

This meta‐analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of FCL versus MNRF in the management of post‐acne scarring.

The analysis included eight randomized controlled trials involving a total of 249 patients. The primary outcomes evaluated encompassed improvement in acne scars, patient satisfaction scores, pain levels, the risk of post‐inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and the duration of erythema.

FCL demonstrated superior improvement in acne scars (MD: 0.31, 95% CI, 0.13–0.48, p = 0.0005) and higher patient satisfaction (MD: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.10–0.44, p = 0.005) compared to MNRF. However, FCL was associated with significantly higher pain scores (MD: 2.14, 95% CI, 1.90–2.37, p < 0.00001), an increased risk of PIH (RR: 4.44, 95% CI, 2.39–8.26, p < 0.00001), and a longer duration of erythema (MD: 1.72 days, 95% CI, 1.43–2.02, p < 0.00001). MNRF exhibited a more favorable safety profile.

While FCL offers superior efficacy for post‐acne scarring, MNRF provides better tolerability. The choice of treatment should be individualized, considering patient‐specific factors such as skin type, pain tolerance, and recovery expectations. Further research with longer follow‐up and standardized outcomes is needed.