acne scarring management: systematic review and evaluation
TRANSCRIPT
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Acne Scarring Management: Systematic Review and Evaluationof the Evidence
Shashank Bhargava1 • Paulo R. Cunha2 • Jennifer Lee3 • George Kroumpouzos2,3,4
� Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
Background Modalities for atrophic acne scarring can be
classified depending upon the needs they satisfy; that is,
resurfacing, lifting/volumization, tightening, or surgical
removal/movement of tissue that is required for correction.
A plethora of treatment options have resulted from the need
to treat various acne scar types, variability of responses
noted in various skin types, and increasing popularity of
minimally invasive modalities. Still, there is a lack of
consensus guidelines on treatment or combination thera-
pies for various clinical scenarios.
Objective This systematic review includes a critical eval-
uation of the evidence relevant to these modalities and
various multimodality therapies.
Methods We performed a systematic literature search in
Medline and EMBASE databases for studies on acne scar
management. Also, we checked the reference lists of
included studies and review articles for further studies. A
total of 89 studies were included in our quality of evidence
evaluation.
Results The efficacy of lasers and radiofrequency in
atrophic acne scarring is confirmed by many comparative
and observational studies. Other modalities can be used as
an adjunct, the choice of which depends on the type,
severity, and number of atrophic scars. Minimally invasive
procedures, such as fractional radiofrequency and needling,
provide good outcomes with negligible risks in patients
with dark or sensitive skin types.
Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality data. Frac-
tional lasers and radiofrequency offer significant
improvement in most types of atrophic acne scars with
minimal risks and can be combined with all other treatment
options. Combination therapies typically provide superior
outcomes than solo treatments.
Key Points
There is a lack of high-quality data on acne scarring
management.
Fractional lasers and radiofrequency offer significant
improvement in most types of atrophic acne scars
with minimal risks, and can be combined with all
other treatment options.
Combination therapies typically provide superior
outcomes than solo treatments.
1 Introduction
Severe scarring has been reported in 30% of acne patients,
although mild to moderate scarring has been reported in up
to 95% of these patients [1]. Acne scarring is often the
& George Kroumpouzos
1 Department of Dermatology, R.D. Gardi Medical College
and C.R. Gardi Hospital, Ujjain, India
2 Department of Dermatology, Medical School of Jundiaı,
Sao Paulo, Brazil
3 Department of Dermatology, Alpert Medical School of
Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
4 Department of Dermatology, Rhode Island Hospital, APC 10,
593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, USA
Am J Clin Dermatol
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-018-0358-5
result of delayed and/or inadequate medical treatment but
can develop despite appropriate medical therapy. Collagen
and other tissue damage, secondary to inflammation of
acne, leads to permanent skin texture changes and fibrosis.
Scars typically proceed through a cascade of wound heal-
ing phases: inflammation, granulation, and remodeling [2].
Acne scarring is a therapeutic challenge as many treat-
ments may be only partially effective, leading to patient
disappointment and frustration [2]. The detrimental effects
of acne scarring are not limited to impaired cosmetic
appearance. Rather, acne scarring has also been associated
with depression and other mental health disorders, suicidal
ideation, emotional debilitation, embarrassment, poor self-
esteem, and general social impairment [3, 4].
Recently, treatment of post-acne scarring has become
easier, with many newer modalities offering better efficacy
and safety than older treatments. Matching individual
patient needs and appropriate treatment is crucial. Health-
care providers need to review treatment options, including
comparing efficacies and safety profiles between treatment
modalities, and setting up realistic expectations about
treatment outcomes with their patients [5].
1.1 Acne Scar Types and Severity
Eighty to ninety percent of acne scars demonstrate asso-
ciated loss of collagen (atrophic scars) [1] whereas the
remainder demonstrate a gain of collagen (keloidal or
hypertrophic scars). Atrophic scars present as depressions
secondary to fibrous contractions. Atrophic acne scars are
classified into boxcar, icepick, and rolling (Fig. 1) [6].
Rolling and boxcar scars can be further subclassified into
superficial or deep, depending on whether they are above or
below, respectively, the depth in the dermis reached with
conventional skin resurfacing options such as carbon
dioxide (CO2) laser [8]. The size of the scar(s) (narrow
[B 3 mm] vs wide [[ 3 mm]) is a factor in therapeutic
decisions, especially when surgery/movement-related pro-
cedures are involved (Sect. 8). The grading of acne scar
severity (Table 1) is crucial to choosing the appropriate
modalities or combination treatments [7].
In this review, we provide comprehensive, evidence-
based information on all monotherapies, including tradi-
tional treatments, but place emphasis on discussing recent
modalities and combination therapies.
2 Methods
We conducted a search of MEDLINE (from 1946) and
EMBASE (from 1974) databases up to November 2017 for
publications in all languages on acne scar management,
regardless of status of publication. Key words used in each
search engine included acne, atrophic, scar (with wildcard
truncation), therapy, surgery, intervention, treatment,
management, and outcome. Furthermore, we checked the
reference lists of included studies and review articles for
further studies. A total of 286 non-duplicate citations were
identified. Full texts of all articles were assessed indepen-
dently by two authors (SB, GK). We considered 119
studies on atrophic scars for quality of evidence (QOE)
assessment (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1 Common types and descriptions of post-acne scars; boxcar, icepick, and rolling are types of atrophic scars
S. Bhargava et al.
2.1 Quality of Evidence (QOE) Analysis
We addressed whether there is high QOE from existing
single-modality, comparative, and multimodality studies in
the treatment of atrophic acne scarring. The review meth-
ods and inclusion and exclusion criteria were established
prior to conducting the review.
Table 1 Grading of acne scar severity (adapted from Goodman and Baron [7])
Grade Level of
disease
Clinical features
1 Macular Erythematous, hyper or hypopigmented flat marks (color problem)
2 Mild Atrophy or hypertrophy may not be obvious at social distances of C 50 cm; covered by makeup or the shadow of
shaved beard hair (men) or normal body hair
3 Moderate Atrophic or hypertrophic scarring is obvious at social distances of C 50 cm; not covered by makeup or the shadow of
shaved beard hair (men) or normal body hair; atrophic scars can be flattened by manual stretching of the skin
4 Severe Atrophic or hypertrophic scarring is evident at social distances of C 50 cm; not covered by makeup or atrophic scars not
flattened by manual stretching of the skin
Cita�ons (n=152)
Cita�ons (n=212)
Non-duplicate cita�ons iden�fied (n=286)
Full-text atrophic scar studies screened (n=119)
Cita�ons excluded (n=60): ac�ve acne (n=19); medical treatment of
acne scars (n=25); acne scar evalua�on (n=11); modality
descrip�on paper (n=5)
Cita�ons excluded (n=30): poor design/methodology (n=14);
small size studies (16)
Cita�ons excluded (n=74):reviews, commentaries, case
studies, le�ers, opinion papers (n=48); abstract only/other ineligible cita�ons (n=26)
Atrophic acne scar studies in QOE analysis (n=89)
Cita�ons excluded (n=33): other acne scar types (n=21); other
atrophic scars (n=12)
Fig. 2 Flow diagram of literature search and selection of studies in atrophic acne scarring for quality of evidence (QOE) analysis
Acne Scar Management
Inclusion Criteria: Studies on treatment of atrophic acne
scarring conducted in patients of any gender, age or ethnic
group that were examined by a dermatologist or an expe-
rienced investigator were included.
Exclusion Criteria: We excluded studies dealing only or
mostly with hypertrophic/keloidal scars or atrophic scars
unrelated to acne, those with poor methodology (e.g.,
outcome not well described or assessed, or no follow-up
reported), and small studies (i.e., studies on solo modalities
with\ 15 subjects and comparative/combination therapy
studies with\ 10 subjects), which can yield inaccurate
results.
Two review authors independently screened the spe-
cifics of studies, including type and severity of acne scar-
ring, types of interventions, limitations, risk of bias, and
outcome measures. Participant-reported scar improvement,
when available, was the primary outcome. Randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated participants (split-
face or placebo) to any modality (or a combination) for
treating acne scars as well as those RCTs that compared
interventions (split-face or parallel arms), controlled stud-
ies with no randomization, quasi-experimental studies, and
experimental descriptive studies were included in the QOE
analysis. QOE was rated according to the classification
(levels I–IV) by Shekelle et al. [8] that approximately
corresponds to the quality classification by Abdel Hay et al.
in a recent Cochrane review; that is, ‘high’, ‘moderate’,
‘low’, and ‘very low’ [9].
3 Results
3.1 QOE Evaluation
A total of 89 studies were included in the QOE analysis
(Fig. 2; Table 2, levels Ib–III). As shown in Table 2, there
is a limited number of single-modality but a good number
of comparative and combination therapy RCTs. Although
some modalities (i.e., needling, polymethylmethacrylate
filler, autologous fibroblast injections) were tested in RCTs
(level Ib QOE designation; ‘A’ grade of recommendation),
most single-modality studies bear a level II or III QOE
designation as there was no randomization. While there is a
good number of solo laser and radiofrequency (RF) studies,
most were uncontrolled (level III QOE).
3.2 Therapeutic Approaches to Different Types
of Acne Scars
Modalities for atrophic acne scars can be classified
depending upon the needs they satisfy; that is, resurfacing,
lifting/volumization, tightening, or surgical
removal/movement of tissue that is required for correction
of scarring [10, 11]. Our systematic literature search
allowed assessment of the efficacy of common modalities
in the treatment of icepick, rolling, and boxcar scars
(Table 3). As shown in Table 3, fractional lasers (FLs) and
RF can treat all types of atrophic acne scars.
4 Resurfacing Modalities
4.1 Microdermabrasion
Microdermabrasion is a minimally invasive technique. It
provides a textural benefit, and superficial acne scars may
benefit from deeper and more aggressive settings [2]. It
offers certain advantages over chemical peeling, such as
greater control in the depth of exfoliation, comparatively
lesser discomfort, and minimal ‘downtime’ (post-proce-
dure peeling). In a small randomized study, combination
therapy of microdermabrasion with aminolevulinic acid
photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT) was more effective
than microdermabrasion with placebo-PDT [12]. Recent
advances combine exfoliation with dermal infusion; that is,
percutaneous dermal drug delivery at the time of or
immediately after exfoliation. In a case series, the use of
microdermabrasion with a topical retinoid was associated
with some improvement in acne scarring [13].
4.2 Dermabrasion
Dermabrasion has been used for several decades with good
results [14]. This procedure removes the epidermis with or
without part of the dermis, and the subsequent wound
remodeling results in neocollagenesis, increased dermal
thickness, and enhanced hydration and epidermal barrier. It
allows the operator to precisely define scar edges [15] and
allows softening of scar edges. It is primarily used for well
defined superficial scars with distinct borders or broad-
based scars with indistinct borders [16]. However, it is
ineffective in treatment of icepick and deep boxcar scars
[17] and demonstrates fair to moderate efficacy in moder-
ate rolling scars [18]. Because it is an operator-dependent
procedure with a suboptimal safety profile, with adverse
effects including pain, erythema, dyspigmentation, signif-
icant recovery time, and scarring from the procedure,
dermabrasion has been largely replaced by FLs in the
treatment of acne scarring.
4.3 Chemical Peeling
Peels can improve skin texture, pigmentation, and tone.
However, adequate control of the peeling depth may be
difficult to achieve [16]. Thirty-five percent glycolic acid
(GA) peels were as efficacious as 20% salicylic–10%
S. Bhargava et al.
Table
2Qualityofevidence
(QOE)evaluationofsingle-m
odality,comparative,
andcombinationstudiesforatrophic
acnescars
Level
of
evidence
aDefinition
Strength
(grade)
of
recommendation
Single-m
odalitystudiesb
Comparativestudiesc
Combinationtherapystudiesc
IaMeta-analysisofRCTs
A
IbC1RCT
ANeedling[36]
Filler(polymethylm
ethacrylate)[62]
Autologousfibroblast
injections[128]
GA
70%
peel[
15%
GA
cream
[20]
TCA
CROSS=needling
[37]
Needling=1340-nm
ErNAFL[40]
Filler=subcision[64]
SpotCO2[
TCA
CROSS[30]
FrCO2[
1064
Nd:YAG
[83]
FrCO2=FrEr:YAG
[75]
FrCO2=FRF
[81,111]
1550-nm
Er:Glass
NAFL=FRF
[96,97]
1550-nm
Er:Glass
NAFL[
asiaticoside
cream
[94]
1540-nm
diode[
1320-nm
Nd:YAG
[105]
Long-pulsed
Nd:YAG
=585/
1.064nm
[103]
FMR[
bipolarRF
[118]
Phenolpeel(1
session)=20%
TCA
peel?
needling[24]
CO2?
subcision[
CO2[135]
FrCO2?
PRP[
FrCO2[71,72]
FrCO2?
punch
elevation[
FrCO2
[124]
1540-nm
Er:Glass
NAFL=peeling?
needling[22]
FMR?
subcision[
FMR[138]
IIa
C1Welldesigned,controlled
study(norandomization)
B1550-nm
Er-doped
NAFL=FrCO2[78]
Needling?
PRP[
Needling?
Vit
C[68]
PRP?
needling[
PRP[38]
PRP?
needling=PRP[74]
PRP?
autologousfat?
Fr
CO2=PRP?
autologousfat[69]
IIb
C1Welldesigned,quasi-
experim
entalstudy
BEr:YAG
[45,46]
Acne Scar Management
Table
2continued
Level
of
evidence
aDefinition
Strength
(grade)
of
recommendation
Single-m
odalitystudiesb
Comparativestudiesc
Combinationtherapystudiesc
III
Welldesigned,non-experim
ental
descriptivestudies(e.g.,
comparative,
correlation,and
case
studies)
BMicrodermabrasion[18]
Dermabrasion(14)
TCA
CROSS[26–29]
Microneedling[31–35]
Laser
resurfacing:CO2[41,42];Er:YAG
[44,47,49]
Subcision[52,53]
Filler(poly-L-lacticacid)[60]
Fractional
lasers:CO2[76,77,79,80,82,84,87];
Er:YAG
[89–91];Er:YSGG
[92];1540-nm
Er:Glass
NAFL[99,100];1550-nm
Er-doped
NAFL[95]
Nonfractional,nonablativelasers:1320-nm
Nd:YAG
[104];1450-nm
diode[106];sub-m
sec1064-nm
Nd:YAG
[107];1064-nm
Nd:YAG
[102];1540-nm
Er:Glass
[108]
Picosecond755-nm
alexandrite
laser[109]
FRF[110,116,117,120–123]
CO2(1
pass)
=Er:YAG
[48]
GA
peel=salicylic-
mandelic
acid
peel
[19]
20%
TCA
?subcision?
FrCO2
[134]
PRP?
FrEr[70]
FrCO2?
PRP=FrCO2[73]
FrCO2?
subcision[
FrCO2[136]
Subcision?
microneedling?
15%
TCA
[137]
BipolarRF/915-nm
diode
laser?
sublativeRF[131]
BipolarRF?
FrCO2[114,132]
IVExpertcommitteereports/
opinionsand/orclinical
experience
ofrespected
authorities
CSofttissueaugmentation[57]
Punch
techniques
[8,10]
FrCO2lasers
[88]
Combinationtherapiesincluding
energy-based
modalities[112,130]
[more
effective,
=equally
effective,
CO2carbondioxide,
CROSSchem
ical
reconstructionofskin
scars,
Ererbium,Frfractional,FMR
fractional
microneedlingradiofrequency,FRF
fractionalradiofrequency,GAglycolicacid,NAFLnonablativefractionallaser,PRPplatelet-rich
plasm
a,RCTsrandomized
controlled
trials,RFradiofrequency,TCAtrichloroaceticacid,YAG
yttrium
aluminum
garnet,YSGG
yttrium
scandium
gallium
garnet
aLevel
ofevidence
was
adaptedfrom
Shekelle
etal.[8]
bStudieswithC15subjectsareincluded
cStudieswithC10subjectsareincluded
S. Bhargava et al.
Table 3 Efficacy of modalities per atrophic scar type
Type of Treatment Modalitya Icepick
Scars
Rolling
Scars
Shallow
Boxcar
Scars
Deep
Boxcar
Scars
Resurfacing Microdermabrasion
Dermabrasion
Peels
CROSS
Needling
Ablative laser
Li�ing-related Subcision
Volume-related Filler
Platelet rich plasmab
Skin Tightening Fractional/nonablative
lasers
Fractional
radiofrequency
Surgery/movement-
related
Punch elevation
Punch excision
Effec�ve Less effective Ineffec�ve
CROSS chemical reconstruction of skin scarsaModalities with substantial quality of evidence data (Table 2) are includedbUsed as adjunct to other procedures
Acne Scar Management
mandelic acid peel for icepick scars, but less efficacious for
boxcar scars [19]. Biweekly GA peels have shown superior
results compared with daily low-strength GA cream over a
period of 24 weeks [20]. Medium-depth peeling with 35%
trichloroacetic acid (TCA) can improve acne scarring with
a short downtime in patients with skin types V–VI [21]. A
study by Leheta et al. showed that the combination of 20%
TCA peel with needling was as effective as fractional
1540-nm non-ablative Er:Glass laser in treating acne
scarring [22]. Deep chemical peels, such as phenol, can
effectively treat atrophic scarring but are limited by a
higher risk of complications, especially post-inflammatory
hyperpigmentation (PIH) and prolonged erythema [23]. In
a comparative study, one session of deep phenol peel was
as efficacious as four sessions of TCA 20% combined with
skin needling [24]. Similar risks are reported with medium-
depth chemical peels such as 35% TCA, especially in
patients with skin types IV–VI [25].
4.4 Chemical Reconstruction of Skin Scars
(CROSS)
Focal treatment of atrophic scars with very high TCA
concentrations (65–100%), has demonstrated high efficacy
with minimal adverse events [26]. Clinical and histological
improvement of icepick scars has been observed with focal
application of high-concentration trichloroacetic acid
(TCA CROSS) [27]. Seventy percent TCA CROSS works
dramatically on all kinds of atrophic scars, including severe
boxcar scars [28]. One-hundred percent TCA CROSS is a
cost-effective modality for icepick scars in darker skin
individuals. Priming with hydroquinone and tretinoin can
minimize complications [29]. TCA CROSS treatment of
icepick scars was found to be less efficacious than the CO2
laser pinpoint irradiation technique [30].
4.5 Skin Needling (Percutaneous Collagen
Induction Therapy)
Needling is based on the principle of percutaneous collagen
induction (PCI) therapy. This modality creates microclefts
in the dermis, and the subsequent dermal trauma initiates a
wound healing process that induces a cascade of growth
factors, resulting in collagen production. Skin needling is
contraindicated in the presence of anticoagulant therapies,
active skin infections, injections of collagen or other
injectable fillers within the past 6 months, and personal or
familiar history of hypertrophic or keloidal scars [31]. It
helps reduce the severity of atrophic scars by one or two
grades in almost all patients [32–36]. Induction of collagen
and elastin by needling improves the tethered rolling scars,
but deposition of new collagen happens slowly, and the
final result may only appear after 8–12 months [9]. Several
sessions are typically required. Needling was as efficacious
as 100% TCA CROSS in a randomized trial [37]. Needling
shows better results when combined with platelet-rich
plasma (PRP) as it enhances the absorption of topical
agents including PRP [38, 39]. Needling demonstrated
efficacy in reducing atrophic scars similar to that of a
1340-nm nonablative laser [40].
4.6 Laser Resurfacing
Laser resurfacing for acne scars uses monochromatic light
to deliver thermal energy, which ultimately stimulates
dermal fibroblasts to replace lost collagen and elastin [16].
These lasers offer substantial improvement in acne scars
because of improved tone and texture, collagen contrac-
tion, remodeling, and skin tightening. Traditionally used
ablative lasers such as 10,600-nm CO2 and 2940-nm
Erbium:yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) offer impres-
sive clinical results, but have been associated with adverse
effects including peri-procedural discomfort, post-proce-
dural erythema, and prolonged recovery. Nevertheless,
performing spot (focal) ablation (i.e., ablating the acne scar
while leaving the surrounding normal skin untreated) can
decrease the adverse effects. The safety profiles of frac-
tional and nonablative lasers are superior to that of the
above traditional ablative lasers, which helps to explain the
increasing popularity of these lasers.
The traditional CO2 laser is available in a high-energy
superpulsed form or a very fast continuous form. An
18-month prospective, uncontrolled study of 60 patients
with moderate-to-severe atrophic facial acne scars
demonstrated significant immediate and prolonged
improvement in skin tone, texture, and appearance of
treated scars after a single treatment session of high-energy
CO2 laser [41]. Persistent collagen formation was shown on
histopathology 18 months post-procedure. The authors
recommend waiting up to 18 months prior to evaluating the
need for retreatment as collagen remodeling continues after
12 months. Koo and colleagues used a high-powered CO2
laser to resurface the shoulder area up to the same level as
the surrounding skin when treating moderate-depth acne
scars while, for the deepest and icepick scars, a laser
punch-out (which peels off the depressed area precisely
and deeply) was combined [42].
The traditional 2940-nm Er:YAG laser allows for
increased absorption of energy higher in the dermis and
decreased nonspecific damage to surrounding structures
when compared with traditional CO2 laser [16]. This
results in decreased post-procedure erythema for the
Er:YAG laser. However, hemostasis is incomplete with
Er:YAG laser, and treatment confers an increased bleeding
risk [43]. The Er:YAG laser shows comparable efficacy to
CO2 laser in the treatment of acne scarring [44–48]. Long-
S. Bhargava et al.
pulsed Er:YAG laser is very efficacious for pitted acne
scars in skin phototypes III–V, with good or excellent
results in 93% of cases [49]. Short-pulsed, variable-pulsed,
and dual-mode Er:YAG lasers are all efficacious in
improving acne scarring, but the dual mode shows the most
consistent results [46, 47]. The short-pulsed Er:YAG laser
was ineffective in deep boxcar scars [46].
Ablative FLs (Sect. 7.1.1) have a better safety profile
than the traditional lasers discussed in this section. How-
ever, they typically require more treatment sessions.
5 Lifting-Related Modalities
5.1 Subcision
Subcision is a technique in which a needle is inserted under
the acne scar to sever the fibrous tissue (tethers) that binds
down the scar [50]. This releases the fibrous tissue,
resulting in scar elevation. Additionally, the induced der-
mal trauma results in clot formation and neocollagenesis
with subsequent filling of the created space, which further
enhances scar elevation. An 18- or 20-gauge tri-beveled
hypodermic needle or an 18-gauge Nocor needle (Becton–
Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) with a triangular tip
are typically employed [16], although cannulas have also
been utilized [51]. A refinement of the procedure includes
subcision at two different levels: upper dermis and sub-
cutaneous tissue (bi-level subcision). Subcision works
primarily in rolling and other tethered scars [52]. Deeper,
wider, and more noticeable rolling scars improve more
dramatically after subcision than scars that were initially
small or shallow, and boxcar scars improve much less than
rolling scars [52]. It can be combined with most other
procedures (Fig. 3). Adverse effects include bruising,
bleeding, infection and acne exacerbation if acne sinus
tracts are disrupted during the procedure, for which
intralesional corticosteroid may be required. A recent study
has shown marked improvement by using a combination of
subcision with skin suctioning therapy [53]. Frequent
suctioning increases its efficacy remarkably and prevents
recurrence of the depression [54].
6 Volume-Related Modalities
6.1 Soft Tissue Augmentation
Fillers are used to augment soft tissue and are most
effective in soft rolling or boxcar scars. Fillers can be used
alone or in combination with prior subcision to improve the
appearance of atrophic acne scars [55]. Fillers containing
hyaluronic acid, calcium hydroxyapatite, and poly-L-lactic
acid (PLLA) are increasingly used to correct atrophic acne
scarring. Injection of cross-linked hyaluronic acid enhances
collagen formation by dermal fibroblasts and improves the
quality of overlying skin [56]. The downfalls are that
multiple sessions are required, and results are only tem-
porary [57]. Calcium hydroxyapatite improves the
appearance of shallow, atrophic acne scars, such as rolling
scars, after a single injection, with a year-long duration of
correction [58]. Also, it has shown great results in boxcar
scars when performed 1 week after subcision [59].
Injectable PLLA is an effective filler in hill and valley acne
scarring, offering up to 2-year correction ranging from
45.5% to 68.2% [60]; it is particularly effective in rolling
scars [61]. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is a perma-
nent filler that showed significant efficacy in reducing
atrophic acne scarring in an RCT [62]. PMMA preceded by
subcision was efficacious in a small open-label pilot study
[63]. Natural source porcine collagen was as effective as
placebo in a small, split-face study [64].
Fig. 3 a A skin type V patient
with a significant number of
rolling and boxcar scars.
b Significant improvement with
a combination treatment of
subcision and PRP (Courtesy of
Dr Renita Rajan). PRP platelet-
rich plasma
Acne Scar Management
6.2 Dermal Grafting
Dermal grafting, the implantation of appropriately dis-
sected deep dermis (graft) into recipient areas, is an old
procedure that is used to treat atrophic scars. Dermal
grafting can be used to treat any round/oval facial scar that
is soft, prominent, and at least 4–5 mm [65]. It is advisable
to perform subcision first. The procedure is not indicated in
large, depressed scars or scars with prominent surface
irregularities; in the latter case, it should be combined with
a resurfacing modality [65]. A disadvantage of the proce-
dure is that it involves multiple incisions that generate new
scars, which will require another procedure for resurfacing
down the line. Also, occasional granuloma formation can
occur secondary to transplantation of epidermis from the
donor site into the recipient site. For these reasons, dermal
grafting has been largely replaced by dermal fillers com-
bined with FLs.
6.3 Fat Transplant
This newer modality is indicated for severely atrophic scars
in which there is destruction of deeper tissues [10]. Lipo-
suction is performed from a viable donor site, and the fat
removed is then injected into the atrophic scar. As with
fillers and dermal grafting, it is advisable to perform sub-
cision first. The process requires virtually no downtime.
However, some fat may not survive the transfer process,
and the procedure is operator-dependent. The longevity of
correction is doubtful. Fat transfer has significantly
improved atrophic acne scars and texture [66]; however,
there are currently no studies on the value of this modality
in atrophic acne scarring. It has been more effective than
ablative fractional CO2 laser for treatment of acne scars in
a small comparative study [66]. In a series, condensed
nanofat combined with fat grafts was an effective approach
for treating atrophic scars [67].
6.4 Platelet-Rich Plasma
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection is a modality that
utilizes patient’s own blood to correct acne scars. PRP
contains a plethora of beneficial growth factors, which
promote collagen and elastin regeneration. It is helpful in
boxcar and rolling scars but shows limited efficacy in
icepick scars [68]. As mentioned above, it can be effec-
tively combined with needling for better outcomes [38].
Most studies have shown a synergistic effect when PRP is
combined with other modalities (see Sect. 10) [69–72]. In
these authors’ experience, PRP can decrease the downtime
associated with other modalities. However, the studies by
Faghihi et al. [73] and Ibrahim et al. [74] showed that there
is no advantage in adding PRP to fractional CO2 laser or
needling, respectively.
7 Skin-Tightening Modalities
7.1 Lasers
7.1.1 Fractional Lasers
FLs were developed to balance the undesirable side effects
of ablative lasers with the limited efficacy of nonablative
lasers. This technology treats only fractions of skin by
creating columns of thermal injury, known as microthermal
zones, thus enabling column-like denaturation of the epi-
dermis and dermis (ablative lasers) or dermis only (non-
ablative lasers). The intervening areas of untouched skin
begin a rapid process of repair with epidermal stem-cell
reproduction and repopulation of the ablated columns of
tissue with fibroblast-derived neocollagenogenesis. Some
are nonablative dermal injuries only, whereas others are
associated with ablative changes in the skin, causing both
epidermal and dermal injury patterns. Optimal outcomes
require multiple treatments. Fractional CO2 laser substan-
tially improves moderate to severe acne scarring [75–82]
and yields superior outcomes when compared with non-
ablative lasers, such as Q-switched 1064-nm Nd:YAG [83].
The effects of CO2 laser on acne scarring are long
lasting; a study demonstrated ongoing efficacy when
evaluated 3 years after the last session of treatment [84].
Ortiz et al. conducted a long-term follow-up study on 10
subjects who had previously received fractional CO2
treatments. Subjects were seen in follow up at 1 year and
2 years after the treatment, and an average 74% mainte-
nance of improvement was reported [85]. Higher-pulse
CO2 laser improves scar depth in two-thirds of the cases
within 3 months [86]. It is a safe and effective treatment
option in Asian patients [87]. Uniform treatment parame-
ters should be used to report CO2 laser treatment outcomes
to establish greatest scar improvement [88]. Reduction in
number of passes and treatment density also reduces risk of
PIH, and the clinical efficacy can be maintained by
increasing the number of treatment sessions [89]. Frac-
tional 2940-nm Er:YAG and Er:yttrium scandium gallium
garnet (Er:YSGG) lasers have shown comparable results to
fractional CO2 laser after multiple treatments [70, 90–92].
However, fractional CO2 laser was associated with greater
treatment discomfort than fractional Er:YAG [75].
Nonablative 1550-nm Er:Glass laser treatment for
atrophic acne scars in high energy parameters has yielded
better results when compared with treatment results of
post-burn or keloidal scars [93]. The treatment is well
tolerated in Asian patients [94]. In another study, almost
S. Bhargava et al.
80% of patients experienced substantial improvement in
atrophic scarring with 1550-nm erbium-doped nonablative
laser [95]. A 1550-nm Er:Glass laser was found to be more
effective than fractional microneedle RF (FMR) for
atrophic acne scars, but the latter offered a shorter down-
time [96]. Rongsaard and Rummaneethorn found 1550-nm
erbium-doped laser and bipolar fractional RF (FRF) to be
equally efficacious, with a higher pain score with laser
[97]. Practitioners must be aware of higher incidence of
pain and PIH with 1550-nm erbium-doped YAG FL in
subjects with skin types IV–VI [98]. In studies by Bencini
et al. [99] and Yoo et al. [100], 1540-nm Er:Glass laser
improved more than 50% of atrophic scars in 87 Italian
patients after 6 months of treatment and 16 Asian patients,
respectively, with only transient erythema. A 1540-nm
Er:Glass nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) can be
combined with other modalities (Fig. 4). As mentioned
above, non-ablative fractional 1340-nm erbium laser and
needling yield similar treatment results for atrophic acne
scars [40].
7.1.2 Nonfractional, Nonablative Lasers
Short pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser showed 29.4% mean
cumulative acne scar improvement after eight treatment
sessions, which, although slow, was associated with mini-
mal downtime [101]. It was effective in smoothing the skin
in 39.2% of cases [102]. Combination 585/1064-nm laser
has slightly superior outcomes in acne scar treatment when
compared with long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser [103]. Nd:YAG
1320-nm laser also works for atrophic acne scarring [104].
A 1450-nm diode laser and a 1320-nm Nd:YAG laser have
shown mild to moderate efficacy in treatment of atrophic
facial scars, with the diode being more effective [105]. A
1450-nm diode laser and sub-millisecond Nd:YAG
1064-nm laser are safe modalities for mild to moderate
atrophic scars in skin types IV and V [106, 107]. Use of a
cooling-vacuum-assisted Er:Glass 1540-nm laser has
yielded moderate to significant improvement in atrophic
acne scars [108].
7.1.3 Picosecond 755-nm Alexandrite Laser
Recently, a 755-nm alexandrite picosecond pulse duration
laser with diffractive lens array has been introduced for
treatment of acne scars [109]. The histologic findings
indicate improvement in scarring, which is beyond colla-
gen remodeling. This is evidenced by additional improve-
ments in pigmentation and texture of the surrounding skin.
The 755-picosecond laser has been used for rolling scars
[109].
7.2 Fractional Radiofrequency
FRF uses an array of electrodes that create micro-thermal
dermal injuries with intervening zones of unaffected skin,
thus stimulating dermal remodeling with neocollagenesis
and neoelastogenesis, as evidenced by increased levels of
procollagen types I and III and elastin [110]. A significant
improvement in elasticity, along with melanin/erythema
index, contributes to improvement of acne scars. Various
radiofrequency (RF) modalities, such as FMR and bipolar
FRF, provide excellent results in the treatment of acne
scars, especially icepick and boxcar scars. Compared with
FLs, FRF is better for patients who are sensitive to pain,
and treatment has a shorter downtime [96]. Also, because
of its lower risk of PIH, FRF is a preferred modality in
darker individuals [110–112]. FRF can be combined with
fractional CO2 laser for synergy [113], and devices com-
bining both technologies have yielded excellent results
[114]. Side effects of RF include transient pain, edema,
minimal scabbing, and erythema that resolve within
3–5 days [115, 116].
Bipolar FRF reduces scar depth and sebum levels and
improves skin texture [117]. It was as effective as a frac-
tional erbium-doped glass 1550-nm laser [96] but less
Fig. 4 a A skin type II patient with erythematous rolling and boxcar scars. b Erythema resolved with IPL (MaxG, ICON, Palomar) and scars
improved with 1540-nm Er:Glass laser (ICON, Palomar). IPL intense pulsed light
Acne Scar Management
effective that FMR in split-face studies [96, 118]. FMR
results in reduction of sebum excretion along with
decreased expression of nuclear factor-jB and interleukin-
8 and increased expression of tumor growth factor-b and
collagen I [118]. Three to four treatment sessions are
usually required at intervals C 3 weeks and yield 25–75%
improvement 3 months after the final session. FMR has
dramatic effect on post-inflammatory erythema [119].
Also, as it enhances dermal matrix regeneration, it results
in improvement of skin roughness in[ 70% of patients
with acne scars and large pores [120]. It is a safe and
effective modality for scars in skin types III and IV and
helps maintain skin texture [121]. FMR combined with
sublative FRF is an effective and safe treatment for
atrophic acne scarring in Asians [122]. FMR can be suc-
cessfully combined with other minimally invasive tech-
nologies, such as 1540-nm Er:Glass FL (Fig. 5), with
minimal risks. Recently, nanofractional RF has shown
excellent results in rolling and boxcar scars [123]. The
efficacy of FMR and nanofractional RF monotherapy
[120–123] (Table 3, level IIIb) needs validation by
prospective controlled studies.
8 Surgery/Movement-Related Modalities
8.1 Punch Techniques
Punch techniques such as punch excision, elevation,
grafting, or float techniques are considered the criterion
standard for punched-out scars up to 3–4 mm in width
(deep boxcar and larger icepick scars) [10]. These scars do
not improve substantially with resurfacing procedures. The
use of fractional resurfacing laser after punch techniques
helps blur the margins of the scars and enhances the aes-
thetic outcome [124].
8.1.1 Punch Elevation
Punch elevation is a technique in which the scar is punched
down to the subcutaneous tissue without being discarded.
The punched scar is then elevated and sutured in place at a
level slightly higher than the surrounding skin to account
for contraction during wound healing [8]; alternatively, the
scar is not sutured but held in the appropriate position with
adhesive skin closure material such as a surgical tape [10].
It is best suited for broad ([ 3 mm) boxcar scars with sharp
edges and normal bases [6, 8, 16]. Punch replacement
grafting is an older technique [125]; it is best suited for
sharp or deep icepick scars with dystrophic or white bases
[10].
8.1.2 Punch Excision
The scar is excised down to the subcutaneous fat with the
help of a punch instrument that is slightly larger than the
scar, and the defect is closed with sutures along relaxed
skin tension lines [2]. Punch excision is best suited for
icepick and narrow (B 3 mm) boxcar scars [17]. For
scars[ 3.5 mm, elliptical excision or punch elevation
provide better cosmetic results than punch excision [16].
8.2 Elliptical Excision
As mentioned in Sect. 8.1.2, elliptical excision can be used
for scars[ 3.5 mm [16]. Also, it may be the only treatment
for very deep irregular-shaped scars in difficult locations.
8.3 Botulinum toxin
As severely atrophic (grade 3) acne scars can be aggravated
by normal muscle movement, several authors find that
botulinum toxin can be beneficial, especially for acne scars
in areas such as the forehead, glabella, and chin [10].
Fig. 5 a A skin type II patient with large numbers of icepick and boxcar scars. b Scars improved with two sessions of 1540-nm Er:Glass (ICON,
Palomar) followed by two sessions of microneedling RF (Factora, Inmode); the latter modality enhanced skin tightening. RF radiofrequency
S. Bhargava et al.
8.4 Facelift
Facelift procedures can help if age-related soft tissue laxity
makes atrophic scarring more noticeable, especially in
patients with numerous rolling scars. A modification of the
standard sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system lift
has been used in combination with PLLA filler with
excellent results [126].
9 Novel Modalities
Autologous bone marrow stem cell intradermal injection
has been found to be safe and effective for all types of
atrophic scars [127]. Intradermal autologous fibroblast
injections are a well tolerated treatment option for
depressed distensible acne scars (Table 2, level 1b) [128].
Topical epidermal growth factor (EGF) was recently used
to improve atrophic acne scars in patients with skin of color
[129]. The results of autologous bone marrow stem cells
and EGF need to be confirmed in larger prospective
studies.
10 Combination Treatments
Combination therapies are more effective than monother-
apies because scars often require volume restoration,
enhanced tightening, and/or tissue movement (e.g., surgical
modalities) along with resurfacing [10]. Zaleski-Larsen
et al. showed that combination modalities can be per-
formed safely, and the synergism among various modalities
contributes to optimal outcomes [130]. Combination of
energy-based technologies, such as lasers or RF, with
modalities such as TCA CROSS, subcision, fillers,
needling, and/or punch excision can provide better and
faster outcomes compared with solo treatments [131].
Lasers have been the mainstay of treatment for most
scars [42]. FR technology, although less efficacious than
ablative lasers such as CO2 and Er:YAG, can provide good
outcomes with little risk to darker and more sensitive skin
types [112]. These energy-based modalities can be com-
bined with all other modalities for optimal and faster out-
comes (Fig. 6), especially in patients with moderate to
severe rolling and boxcar scarring. A combination of
fractional CO2 laser with RF intensifies the thermal effects,
thus providing better results in less time and with fewer
sessions without increasing the side effects [113, 114].
Treatment with a device combining bipolar RF and 915-nm
diode laser followed by sublative bipolar RF provided
excellent results for both superficial and deep atrophic
scars [131]. The efficacy of devices combining RF and
diode laser is supported by additional studies [132, 133].
Subcision is the first procedure to be performed in
rolling scars and is also very helpful as an initial procedure
for other bound-down scars associated with tethering.
Rolling scars were effectively treated with a single session
of TCA 20% peel, subcision, and fractional CO2 laser
[134]. Performing subcision before CO2 laser (Fig. 6) has
yielded better outcomes for all scar types [135]. Fractional
CO2 laser can be preceded by subcision or punch elevation
to optimize results [124, 136]. Subcision followed by
needling and 15% TCA peel alternatively at 2-week
intervals have shown excellent results for rolling and
boxcar scars [137]. Finally, MFR combined with prior
subcision provides better results than MFR alone and is a
safe combination in Asian patients [138].
NAFLs can be used in patients with mild to moderate
scarring that desire only little downtime and minimal risks.
The combination of a fractional nonablative with spot
Fig. 6 a A skin type V patient with severe mixed acne scarring. b Response to subcision followed by a combination of fractional CO2 (Fraxis
Duo, Ilooda) and PRP (Courtesy of Dr Renita Rajan). CO2 carbon dioxide, PRP platelet-rich plasma
Acne Scar Management
ablative resurfacing laser allows for global improvement
(complexion/texture) as well as significant improvement in
acne scars with minimal downtime [112]. TCA CROSS,
punch techniques, or excision should be performed before
resurfacing procedures in those patients with punched out
scars, such as icepick and boxcar scars. However, punch
procedures are not possible in patients with numerous
icepick scars, and an ablative fractional CO2 or erbium is
recommended in this case [130]. PRP can be used only as
an adjunctive therapy as it can help with neocollagenesis
and decreases downtime. It can be combined with frac-
tional CO2 laser [69, 71, 72], fractional erbium laser [70],
or needling [68].
Concomitant problems, such as large pores, pits, and
oily skin can be a major nuisance to patients with acne
scars. These can substantially improve with technologies
such as fractional CO2 laser, needling, or FRF [117, 130].
11 Treatment of Hypertrophic/Keloidal AcneScars
Erythematous hypertrophic scars are treated first with a
vascular laser such as pulsed dye laser (PDL) (see
Sect. 13.1.1), with concomitant intralesional triamcinolone
acetonide (TAC) 20 mg/mL or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)
50 mg/mL [139]. Intralesional 5-FU 50 mg/mL can be
used alone (0.1–0.3 mL per scar; 1 mL total per session) or
mixed 80:20 with a low-strength steroid [10]. Other authors
perform NAFL immediately after PDL and ultimately
inject 0.1 mL TAC 10 mg/mL along with 0.9 mL of 5-FU
[130]. Each scar should not be injected with more than
0.1 mL [140]. NAFL with intralesional TAC or 5-FU can
be repeated at 3-week intervals [141]. Most authors treat
keloids with intralesional TAC and/or 5-FU and avoid laser
treatment because of a lack of data on long-term efficacy
[130, 142].
12 Special Considerations
12.1 Treatment of Discolored Scars
Color alteration may be the main visual clue to the pres-
ence of scarring and is often the main concern of the
patient [143]. As such, color alteration often needs to be
addressed before the treatment of acne scarring.
12.1.1 Erythematous Scars
Scar-associated erythema (SAE) can respond to intense
pulsed light (IPL) [144] (Fig. 4) and vascular lasers such as
PDL [143]. A 68% reduction in SAE was observed 6 weeks
post-treatment of half of the face with 585-nm flashlamp-
pumped PDL compared with the untreated half [145].
Erbium-doped 1550-nm FL has more satisfied patients than
595-nm PDL when it comes to treatment results for erythe-
matous scars; however, these modalities show similar effi-
cacy [146]. A greater improvement of SAE was obtained
withmicrosecond-pulsedNd:YAG laser that delivers energy
through a small spot size, short pulse durations, low fluence,
and quick laser bursts [16, 103, 147].
12.1.2 Hyperpigmented Scars
Medical therapy with bleaching preparations, chemical
peels, pigment lasers, and fractionated lasers may be
helpful [143]. A QS 755-nm alexandrite laser, occasionally
preceded by IPL, has been used for skin types I–IV, while a
755-nm Pico laser or a 1064-nm QS Nd:YAG laser has
been used for skin types V and VI [130].
12.1.3 Hypopigmented Scars
Improving hypopigmented scars is a challenge and may
require ablative fractional laser or NAFL followed by
bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily and tretinoin 0.25% at
night. An erbium-doped 1550-nm fractional laser enhances
drug delivery of bimatoprost, tretinoin, or pimecrolimus
[130]. Excision may be the most cost-effective option for
hypopigmented scars.
12.2 Treatment Options in Skin of Color
FL resurfacing has been associated with PIH in skin types
IV–VI, especially at higher treatment densities [148]. As
mentioned above, FRF is not chromophore dependent, and
can be safely used in skin types IV–VI [110–112]. Need-
ling may offer a more advantageous safety profile, partic-
ularly in the skin-of-color population (Fitzpatrick skin
types IV–VI), compared with more conventional resurfac-
ing modalities [149]; however, it is usually less effective
than the fractional technologies. Other modalities, such as
subcision and PRP, can be safely used in multimodality
therapies with minimal risks (Figs. 3 and 6). Treatment
with a topical lightening agent (e.g., hydroquinone, treti-
noin, vitamin C, glycolic acid) for approximately 2 weeks
prior to performing energy-related modalities or peels
helps prevent hyperpigmentation and improves healing
times in patients with darker skin types [112].
12.3 Acne Scar Treatment during Concomitant
Isotretinoin Therapy
Although it was previously recommended to avoid acne
scar treatment during isotretinoin therapy and for 6 months
S. Bhargava et al.
thereafter, recent reports have shown successful treatment
of several patients on isotretinoin with fractional modali-
ties, needling, TCA CROSS, subcision, and punch tech-
niques without any complications [112]. NAFL treatment
for acne scarring appears to be well tolerated within
1 month of completing isotretinoin treatment [150]. A
consensus group recently indicated that there is insufficient
evidence to support delaying manual dermabrasion,
superficial chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, or fractional
ablative and nonablative laser procedures for patients
receiving or having recently completed isotretinoin therapy
[151].
13 Discussion
There is a lack of high-quality evidence for many modal-
ities and a need to conduct RCTs with larger numbers of
participants and a standardized set of core outcome mea-
sures [9, 11]. In a Cochrane review, FL was more effective
than non-fractional, non-ablative laser, and as effective as
FRF [9]. The results of our QOE evaluation confirm the
efficacy of FLs and FRF in atrophic acne scarring. Mini-
mally invasive procedures such as FRF and needling are
safe in skin of color. Our QOE evaluation shows that
energy-based modalities such as FLs and FRF, needling,
and PRP can be used in multimodality therapies with
excellent results. The choice of multimodality therapy
depends among others upon the severity and type of acne
scarring, skin type, and safety profile of modalities.
Patient education is vital and helps establish realistic
expectations. The provider should consider the patient’s
ability to accept risk, possibility of a prolonged treatment
process, limitations of the patient’s budget, intellect, social
circumstances, and work requirements [143]. A thorough
discussion with the patient about a carefully mapped out
treatment plan, the minimum number of sessions required,
and relevant cost, promotes compliance. The patient’s
preferences on which modalities to pursue and how to
incorporate the treatment sessions in their life and work
schedules should be considered.
14 Conclusions
Acne scarring has a profound psychological impact on
patients. With the plethora of modalities for acne scarring,
but lack of high QOE, it is recommended that the health-
care provider spend sufficient time with the patient to
review the specifics of applicable modalities, including
anticipated results, safety, and number of sessions required.
Patients with moderate to severe acne scarring most often
need multimodality therapies for optimal and faster results,
and the cost of such is an important aspect to discuss from
the beginning. Acne scar type and severity, dyspigmenta-
tion, textural issues and patient’s skin type need to be
considered to optimize outcomes.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding None declared.
Conflict of interest SB, PRC, JL and GK declare that they have no
conflict of interest.
References
1. Layton AM, Henderson CA, Cunliffe WJ. A clinical evaluation
of acne scarring and its incidence. Clin Exp Dermatol.
1994;19:303–8.
2. Rivera AE, Spencer JM. Clinical aspects of full-thickness
wound healing. Clin Dermatol. 2007;25:39–48.
3. Koo J. The psychosocial impact of acne: patients’ perceptions.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32:S26–30.
4. Halvorsen JA, Stern RS, Dalgard F, Thoresen M, Bjertness E,
Lien L. Suicidal ideation, mental health problems, and social
impairment are increased in adolescents with acne: a population-
based study. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:363–70.
5. Werschler WP, Few JW, Jacob CI, Joseph JH, Spencer JM, Taub
AF. Advancing the care of post-acne scarring: expert insights
into new treatment options. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:518–25.
6. Jacob CI, Dover JS, Kaminer MS. Acne scarring: a classification
system and review of treatment options. J Am Acad Dermatol.
2001;45:109–17.
7. Goodman GJ, Baron JA. Postacne scarring-a qualitative global
scarring grading system. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2006;5:48–52.
8. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing
clinical guidelines. West J Med. 1999;170:348–51.
9. Abdel Hay R, Shalaby K, Zaher H, Hafez V, Chi CC, Dimitri S,
et al. Interventions for acne scars. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2016;4:CD011946.
10. Goodman GJ. Treating scars: addressing surface, volume, and
movement to expedite optimal results. Part 2: more-severe
grades of scarring. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38:1310–21.
11. Patel L, McGrouther D, Chakrabarty K. Evaluating evidence for
atrophic scarring treatment modalities. JRSM Open.
2014;5(9):2054270414540139.
12. Linkner RV, Jim On S, Haddican M, Singer G, Shim-Chang H.
Evaluating the efficacy of photodynamic therapy with 20%
aminolevulinic acid and microdermabrasion as a combination
treatment regimen for acne scarring: a split-face, randomized,
double-blind pilot study. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2014;7:32–5.
13. Bhalla M, Thami GP. Microdermabrasion: reappraisal and brief
review of literature. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:809–14.
14. Cai GB, Li HD, Zhang Y, Liu L, Chen GY, Li TY, et al. Full
face dermabrasion for acne scars [Chinese]. Zhonghua Zheng
Xing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2005;21:192–3.
15. Hirsch RJ, Lewis AB. Treatment of acne scarring. Semin Cutan
Med Surg. 2001;20:190–8.
16. Connolly D, Vu HL, Mariwalla K, Saedi N. Acne scarring–
pathogenesis, evaluation, and treatment options. J Clin Aesthet
Dermatol. 2017;10:12–3.
17. Thiboutot D, Gollnick H, Bettoli V, Dreno B, Kang S, Leyden
JJ, et al. New insights into the management of acne: an update
from the global alliance to improve outcomes in acne group.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60:S1–50.
Acne Scar Management
18. Arora S. A study of efficacy of microdermabrasion in treatment
of facial acne scars-Original Research. Int J Dent Med Spec.
2014;1:11–9.
19. Garg VK, Sinha S, Sarkar R. Glycolic acid peels versus sali-
cylic-mandelic acid peels in active acne vulgaris and post-acne
scarring and hyperpigmentation: a comparative study. Dermatol
Surg. 2009;35:59–65.
20. Erbagci Z, Akcali C. Biweekly serial glycolic acid peels vs.
long-term daily use of topical low-strength glycolic acid in the
treatment of atrophic acne scars. Int J Dermatol.
2000;39:789–94.
21. Sharquie KE, Noaimi AA, Al-Janabi EA. Treatment of active
acne vulgaris by chemical peeling using TCA 35%. JCDSA.
2013;3:32–5. https://doi.org/10.4236/jcdsa.2013.33A2008.
22. Leheta TM, Abdel Hay RM, Hegazy RA, El Garem YF. Do
combined alternating sessions of 1540 nm nonablative fractional
laser and percutaneous collagen induction with trichloroacetic
acid 20% show better results than each individual modality in
the treatment of atrophic acne scars? A randomized controlled
trial. J Dermatol Treat. 2014;25:137–41.
23. Park JH, Choi YD, Kim SW, Kim YC, Park SW. Effectiveness
of modified phenol peel (Exoderm) on facial wrinkles, acne
scars and other skin problems of Asian patients. J Dermatol.
2007;34:17–24.
24. Leheta TM, Abdel Hay RM, Garem YF. Deep peeling using
phenol versus percutaneous collagen induction combined with
trichloroacetic acid 20% in atrophic post-acne scars; a ran-
domized controlled trial. J Dermatolog Treat. 2014;25:130–6.
25. Al-Waiz MM, Al-Sharqi AI. Medium-depth chemical peels in
the treatment acne scars in dark-skinned individuals. Dermatol
Surg. 2002;28:383–7.
26. Lee JB, Chung WG, Kwahck H, Lee KH. Focal treatment of
acne scars with trichloroacetic acid: chemical reconstruction of
skin scars method. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28:1017–21.
27. Yug A, Lane JE, Howard MS, Kent DE. Histologic study of
depressed acne scars treated with serial high-concentration
(95%) trichloroacetic acid. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:985–90.
28. Agrawal N, Gupta LK, Khare AK, Kuldeep CM, Mittal A.
Therapeutic response of 70% trichloroacetic acid CROSS in
atrophic acne scars. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41:597–604.
29. Khunger N, Bhardwaj D, Khunger M. Evaluation of CROSS
technique with 100% TCA in the management of ice pick acne
scars in darker skin types. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2011;10:51–7.
30. Ahmed R, Mohammed G, Ismail N, Elakhras A. Randomized
clinical trial of CO2 LASER pinpoint irradiation technique
versus chemical reconstruction of skin scars (CROSS) in treat-
ing ice pick acne scars. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16:8–13.
31. Fabbrocini G, Fardella N, Monfrecola A, Proietti I, Innocenzi D.
Acne scarring treatment using skin needling. Clin Exp Derma-
tol. 2009;34:874–7.
32. Majid I. Microneedling therapy in atrophic facial scars: an
objective assessment. J Cutan Asthet Surg. 2009;2:26–30.
33. Pandey A, Swain JP, Minj A. Assessment of microneedling
therapy in the management of atrophic facial acne scars. J Evid
Based Med Healthc. 2015;57:8911–3.
34. Srivastava R, Shah YM, Garg AM, Paliwal G, Kumar A. A
study of skin resurfacing for atrophic acne scars by skin needling
with dermaroller. Internat Med J. 2016;3:1010–4.
35. Dogra S, Yadav S, Sarangal R. Microneedling for acne scars in
Asian skin type: an effective low cost treatment modality.
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2014;13:180–7.
36. Alam M, Han S, Pongprutthipan M, Disphanurat W, Kakar R,
Nodzenski M, et al. Efficacy of a needling device for the
treatment of acne scars: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA
Dermatol. 2014;150:844–9.
37. Leheta T, El Tawdy A, Abdel Hay R, Farid S. Percutaneous
collagen induction versus full-concentration trichloroacetic acid
in the treatment of atrophic acne scars. Dermatol Surg.
2011;37:207–16.
38. Asif M, Kanodia S, Singh K. Combined autologous platelet-rich
plasma with microneedling versus microneedling with distilled
water in the treatment of atrophic acne scars: a concurrent split-
face study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2016;15:434–43.
39. Fabbrocini G, De Vita V, Pastore F, Panariello F, Fardella N,
Sepulveres R, et al. Combined use of skin needling and platelet-
rich plasma in acne scarring treatment. Cosm Dermat.
2011;24:177–83.
40. Cachafeiro T, Escobar G, Maldonado G, Cestari T, Corleta O.
Comparison of nonablative fractional Erbium laser 1,340 nm
and microneedling for the treatment of atrophic acne scars: a
randomized clinical trial. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42:232–41.
41. Walia S, Alster TS. Prolonged clinical and histologic effects
from CO2 laser resurfacing of atrophic acne scars. Dermatol
Surg. 1999;25:926–30.
42. Koo SH, Yoon ES, Ahn DS, Park SH. Laser punch out for acne
scars. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2001;25:46–51.
43. Kye YC. Resurfacing of pitted facial scars with a pulsed
Er:YAG laser. Dermatol Surg. 1997;23:685–7.
44. Hu S, Gold MH. Treatment of facial acne scars in Asian skin
with the single-spot, 2940-nm Er:YAG dual-mode laser. J Drugs
Dermatol. 2010;9:1341–4.
45. Wanitphakdeedecha R, Manuskiatti W, Siriphukpong S, Chen
TM. Treatment of punched out atrophic and rolling acne scars in
skin phototypes iii, iv, and v with variable square pulse
Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser resurfacing. Dermatol
Surg. 2009;35:1376–83.
46. Woo SH, Park JH, Kye YC. Resurfacing of different types of
facial acne scar with short-pulsed, variable-pulsed, and dual-
mode Er: Yag laser. Dermatol Surg. 2004;30:488–93.
47. Tanzi EL, Alster TS. Treatment of atrophic facial acne scars
with dual-mode Er:YAG laser. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28:551–5.
48. Tanzi EL, Alster TS. Single-pass carbon dioxide versus multi-
ple-pass Er:YAG laser skin resurfacing: a comparison of post-
operative wound healing and side-effect rates. Dermatol Surg.
2003;29:80–4.
49. Jeong JT, Kye YC. Resurfacing of pitted facial acne scars with a
long-pulsed Er:YAG laser. Dermatol Surg. 2001;27:107–10.
50. Orentreich DS, Orentreich N. Subcutaneous incisionless (sub-
cision) surgery for the correction of depressed scars and wrin-
kles. Dermatol Surg. 1995;21:543–9.
51. Nilforoushzadeh M, Lotv E, Nickkholgh E. Can subcision with
the cannula be an acceptable alternative method in treatment of
acne scars? Med Arch. 2015;69:384–6.
52. Alam M, Omura N, Kaminer MS. Subcision for acne scarring:
technique and outcomes in 40 patients. Dermatol Surg.
2005;31:310–7.
53. Aalami HS, Balighi K, Lajevardi V, Akbari E. Subcision-suction
method: a new successful combination therapy in treatment of
atrophic acne scars and other depressed scars. J Eur Acad
Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25:92–9.
54. Kandil AH, Selim AG, Elghonemy S, Eldosoky F, Elsayed A.
Evaluation of subcision-suction method in the treatment of
depressed scars. Egypt J Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;40:39–48.
55. Lee JW, Kim BJ, Kim MN. Treatment of acne scars using
subdermal minimal surgery technology. Dermatol Surg.
2010;36:1281–7.
56. Wang F, Garza LA, Kang S, Varani J, Orringer JS, Fisher GJ,
et al. In vivo stimulation of de novo collagen production caused
by cross-linked hyaluronic acid dermal filler injections in pho-
todamaged human skin. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143:155–63.
S. Bhargava et al.
57. Goodman GJ. Management of post-acne scarring: what are the
options for treatment? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2000;1:3–17.
58. Goldberg DJ, Amin S, Hussain M. Acne scar correction using
calcium hydroxylapatite in a carrier-based gel. J Cosmet Laser
Ther. 2006;8:134–6.
59. Jacovella PF. Use of calcium hydroxylapatite (Radiesse) for
facial augmentation. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3:161–74.
60. Sapra S, Stewart JA, Mraud K, Schupp R. A Canadian study of
the use of poly-L-lactic acid dermal implant for the treatment of
hill and valley acne scarring. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41:587–94.
61. Sadove R. Injectable poly-L-lactic acid: A novel sculpting agent
for the treatment of dermal fat atrophy after severe acne. Aes-
thetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:113–6.
62. Karnik J, Baumann L, Bruce S. A double-blind, randomized,
multicenter, controlled trial of suspended polymethylmethacry-
late microspheres for the correction of atrophic facial acne scars.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:77–83.
63. Epstein RE, Spencer JM. Correction of atrophic scars with
artefill: an open-label pilot study. J Drugs Dermatol.
2010;9:1062–4.
64. Sage RJ, Lopiccolo MC, Liu A, Mahmoud BH, Tierney EP,
Kouba DJ. Subcuticular incision versus naturally sourced por-
cine collagen filler for acne scars: a randomized splitface com-
parison. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37:426–31.
65. Shilpa K, Sacchidanand S, Leelavathy B, Shilpashree P, Gorur
D, Ranjitha R, et al. Outcome of dermal grafting in the man-
agement of atrophic facial scars. J Cutan Aesthet Surg.
2016;9:244–8.
66. Azzam OA, Atta AT, Sobhi RM, Mostafa PI. Fractional CO2
laser treatment vs autologous fat transfer in the treatment of acne
scars: a comparative study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:e7–13.
67. Gu Z, Li Y, Li H. Use of condensed nanofat combined with fat
grafts to treat atrophic scars. JAMA Facial Plast Surg.
2018;20:128–35.
68. Chawla S. Split face comparative study of microneedling with
PRP versus microneedling with vitamin C in treating atrophic
post acne scars. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2014;7:209–12.
69. Tenna S, Cogliandro A, Barone M, Panasiti V, Tirindelli M,
Nobile C, et al. Comparative study using autologous fat grafts
plus platelet-rich plasma with or without fractional CO2 laser
resurfacing in treatment of acne scars: analysis of outcomes and
satisfaction with FACE-Q. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41:661–6.
70. Zhu JT, Xuan M, Zhang YN, Liu HW, Cai JH, Wu YH, et al.
The efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma combined with
erbium fractional laser therapy for facial acne scars or acne. Mol
Med Rep. 2013;8:233–7.
71. Lee JW, Kim BJ, Kim MN, Mun SK. The efficacy of autologous
platelet rich plasma combined with ablative carbon dioxide
fractional resurfacing for acne scars: a simultaneous split-face
trial. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37:931–8.
72. Gawdat HI, Hegazy RA, Fawzy MM, Fathy M. Autologous
platelet rich plasma: topical versus intradermal after fractional
ablative carbon dioxide laser treatment of atrophic acne scars.
Dermatol Surg. 2014;40:152–6.
73. Faghihi G, Keyvan S, Asilian A, Nouraei S, Behfar S, Nil-
foroushzadeh MA. Efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma
combined with fractional ablative carbon dioxide resurfacing
laser in treatment of facial atrophic acne scars: a split-face
randomized clinical trial. Ind J Dermatol Venereol Leprol.
2016;82:162–8.
74. Ibrahim MK, Ibrahim SM, Salem AM. Skin microneedling plus
platelet-rich plasma versus skin microneedling alone in the
treatment of atrophic post acne scars: a split face comparative
study. J Dermatol Treat. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09546634.2017.1365111.
75. Manuskiatti W, Iamphonrat T, Wanitphakdeedecha R, Eimpunth
S. Comparison of fractional erbium-doped yttrium aluminum
garnet and carbon dioxide lasers in resurfacing of atrophic acne
scars in Asians. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:111–20.
76. Walgrave SE, Ortiz AE, MacFalls HT, Elkeeb L, Truitt AK,
Tournas JA, et al. Evaluation of a novel fractional resurfacing
device for treatment of acne scarring. Lasers Surg Med.
2009;41:122–7.
77. Cho SB, Lee SJ, Kang JM. The efficacy and safety of 10,600-nm
carbon dioxide fractional laser for acne scars in Asian patients.
Dermatol Surg. 2009;35:1955–61.
78. Alajlan AM, Alsuwaidan SN. Acne scars in ethnic skin treated
with both non-ablative fractional 1,550 nm and ablative frac-
tional CO2 lasers: comparative retrospective analysis with rec-
ommended guidelines. Lasers Surg Med. 2011;43:787–91.
79. Naouri M, Atlan M, Perrodeau E, Georgesco G, Khallouf R,
Martin L, et al. High-resolution ultrasound imaging to demon-
strate and predict efficacy of carbon dioxide fractional resur-
facing laser treatment. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37:596–603.
80. Qian H, Lu Z, Ding H, Yan S, Xiang L, Gold MH. Treatment of
acne scarring with fractional CO2 laser. J Cosmet Laser Ther.
2012;14:162–5.
81. Zhang Z, Fei Y, Chen X, Lu W, Chen J. Comparison of a
fractional microplasma radio frequency technology and carbon
dioxide fractional laser for the treatment of atrophic acne scars:
a randomized split-face clinical study. Dermatol Surg.
2013;39:559–66.
82. Huang L. A new modality for fractional CO2 laser resurfacing
for acne scars in Asians. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28:627–32.
83. Asilian A, Salimi E, Faghihi G. Comparison of Q-switched
1064-nm Nd: YAG laser and fractional CO2 laser efficacies on
improvement of atrophic facial acne scar. J Res Med Sci.
2011;16:1189–95.
84. Elcin G, Yalici-Armagan B. Fractional carbon dioxide laser for
the treatment of facial atrophic acne scars: prospective clinical
trial with short and long-term evaluation. Lasers Med Sci.
2017;32:2047–54.
85. Ortiz AE, Tremaine AM, Zachary CB. Long-term efficacy of
fractional resurfacing device. Lasers Surg Med.
2010;42:168–70.
86. Chapas AM, Brightman L, Sukal S. Successful treatment of
acneiform scarring with CO2 ablative fractional resurfacing.
Lasers Surg Med. 2008;40:381–6.
87. Park GH, Rhee DY, Bak H, Chang SE, Lee MW, Choi JH, et al.
Treatment of atrophic scars and fractional photothermolysis:
short-term follow-up. J Dermatolog Treat. 2011;22:43–8.
88. Magnani LR, Schweiger ES. Fractional CO2 lasers for the
treatment of atrophic acne scars: a review of the literature.
J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16:48–56.
89. Chan NP, Ho SG, Yeung CK, Shek SY, Chan HH. The use of
non-ablative fractional resurfacing in Asian acne scar patients.
Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42:710–5.
90. Deng H, Yuan D, Yan C, Lin X, Ding X. A 2940 nm fractional
photothermolysis laser in the treatment of acne scarring: a pilot
study in China. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8:978–80.
91. Nirmal B, Sripathi H, Rao R, Prabhu S, Kudur MH, et al.
Efficacy and safety of erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet
fractional resurfacing laser for treatment of facial acne scars.
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013;79:193–8.
92. Kim S. Treatment of acne scars in Asian patients using a 2,790-
nm fractional yttrium scandium gallium garnet laser. Dermatol
Surg. 2011;37:1464–9.
93. Gokalp H. Evaluation of nonablative fractional laser treatment
in scar reduction. Lasers Med Sci. 2017;32:1629–35.
94. Yang Q, Huang W, Qian H, Chen S, Ma L, Lu Z. Efficacy and
safety of 1550-nm fractional laser in the treatment of acne scars
Acne Scar Management
in Chinese patients: a split-face comparative study. J Cosmet
Laser Ther. 2016;18:312–6.
95. Chrastil B, Glaich AS, Goldberg LH, Friedman PM. Second-
generation 1,550-nm fractional photothermolysis for the treat-
ment of acne scars. Dermatol Surg. 2008;34:1327–32.
96. Chae WS, Seong JY, Jung HN, Kong SH, Kim MH, Suh HS,
et al. Comparative study on efficacy and safety of 1550 nm Er:
glass fractional laser and fractional radiofrequency microneedle
device for facial atrophic acne scar. J Cosm Dermatol.
2015;14:100–6.
97. Rongsaard N, Rummaneethorn P. Comparison of a fractional
bipolar radiofrequency device and a fractional erbium-doped
glass 1,550-nm device for the treatment of atrophic acne scars: a
randomized split-face clinical study. Dermatol Surg.
2014;40:14–21.
98. Mahmoud BH, Srivastava D, Janiga JJ, Yang JJ, Lim HW, Ozog
DM. Safety and efficacy of erbium-doped yttrium aluminum
garnet fractionated laser for treatment of acne scars in type IV to
VI skin. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36:602–9.
99. Bencini PL, Tourlaki A, Galimberti M. Nonablative fractional
photothermolysis for acne scars: clinical and in vivo micro-
scopic documentation of treatment efficacy. Dermatol Ther.
2012;25:463–7.
100. Yoo KH, Ahn JY, Kim JY. The use of 1540 nm fractional
photothermolysis for the treatment of acne scars in Asian skin: a
pilot study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed.
2009;25:138–42.
101. Lipper GM, Perez M. Nonablative acne scar reduction after a
series of treatments with a short-pulsed 1,064-nm neodymiu-
m:YAG laser. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:998–1006.
102. Friedman PM, Jih MH, Skover GR. Treatment of atrophic facial
acne scars with the 1064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser: six-
month follow-up study. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140:1337–41.
103. Min SU, Choi YS, Lee DH, Yoon MY, Suh DH. Comparison of
a long-pulse Nd:YAG laser and a combined 585/1,064-nm laser
for the treatment of acne scars: a randomized split-face clinical
study. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35:1720–7.
104. Chan HL, Lam LK, Wong DS, Kono T, Trendell SN. Use of
1320 nm Nd:YAG laser for wrinkle reduction and the treatment
of atrophic acne scarring in Asians. Lasers Surg Med.
2004;34:98–103.
105. Tanzi EL, Alster TS. Comparison of a 1450-nm diode laser and
a 1320-nm Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of atrophic facial
scars: a prospective clinical and histologic study. Dermatol
Surg. 2004;30:152–7.
106. Chua SH, Ang P, Khoo LS, Goh CL. Nonablative 1450 nm
diode laser in the treatment of facial atrophic acne scars in type
IV to V Asian skin: a prospective study. Dermatol Surg.
2004;30:1287–91.
107. Badawi A, Tome MA, Atteya A, Sami N, Morsy IA. Retro-
spective analysis of non-ablative scar treatment in dark skin
types using the sub-millisecond Nd:YAG 1064 nm laser. Lasers
Surg Med. 2011;43:130–6.
108. Politi Y, Levi A, Lapidoth M. Integrated cooling-vacuum-as-
sisted non-fractional 1540 nm Erbium: glass laser is effective in
treating acne scars. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:1359–63.
109. Brauer JA, Kazlouskaya V, Alabdulrazzaq H, Bae Y, Bernstein
LJ, Anolk R, et al. Use of a picosecond pulse duration laser with
specialized optic for treatment of facial acne scarring. JAMA
Dermatol. 2015;151:278–84.
110. Kim JE, Lee HW, Kim JK, Moon SH, Ko JW, Lee MW, et al.
Objective evaluation of the clinical efficacy of fractional
radiofrequency treatment for acne scars and enlarged pores in
Asian skin. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40:988–95.
111. Zhang Z, Fei Y, Chen X, Lu W, Chen J. Comparison of a
fractional microplasma radio frequency technology and carbon
dioxide fractional laser for the treatment of atrophic acne scars:
a randomized split-face clinical study. Dermatol Surg.
2013;39:559–66.
112. Kroepfl L, Emer JJ. Combination therapy for acne scarring:
personal experience and clinical suggestions. J Drugs Dermatol.
2016;15:1413–9.
113. Cameli N, Mariano M, Serio M, Ardigo M. Preliminary com-
parison of fractional laser with fractional laser plus radiofre-
quency for the treatment of acne scars and photoaging. Dermatol
Surg. 2014;40:553–61.
114. Tenna S, Cogliandro A, Piombino L, Filoni A, Persichetti P.
Combined use of fractional CO2 laser and radiofrequency waves
to treat acne scars: a pilot study on 15 patients. J Cosmet Laser
Ther. 2012;14:166–71.
115. Simmons BJ, Griffith RD, Falto-Aizpurua LA, Nouri K. Use of
radiofrequency in cosmetic dermatology: focus on nonablative
treatment of acne scars. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol.
2014;7:335–9.
116. Chandrashekar BS, Sriram R, Mysore R, Bhaskar S, Shetty A.
Evaluation of microneedling fractional radiofrequency device
for treatment of acne scars. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2014;7:93–7.
117. Kaminaka C, Uede M, Matsunaka H, Furukawa F. Clinical
studies of the treatment of facial atrophic acne scars and acne
with a bipolar fractional radiofrequency system. J Dermatol.
2015;42:580–7.
118. Min S, Park SY, Yoon JY, Suh DH. Comparison of fractional
microneedling radiofrequency and bipolar radiofrequency on
acne and acne scar and investigation of mechanism: comparative
randomized controlled clinical trial. Arch Dermatol Res.
2015;307:897–904.
119. Min S, Park SY, Yoon JY, Kwon HH, Suh DH. Fractional
microneedling radiofrequency treatment for acne-related post-
inflammatory erythema. Acta Derm Venereol. 2016;96:87–91.
120. Cho SI, Chung BY, Choi MG, Baek JH, Cho HJ, Park CW, et al.
Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of fractional radiofrequency
microneedle treatment in acne scars and large facial pores.
Dermatol Surg. 2012;38:1017–24.
121. Vejjabhinanta V, Wanitphakdeedecha R, Limtanyakul P,
Manuskiatti W. The efficacy in treatment of facial atrophic acne
scars in Asians with a fractional radiofrequency microneedle
system. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2014;28:1219–25.
122. Park JY, Lee EG, Yoon MS, Lee HJ. The efficacy and safety of
combined microneedle fractional radiofrequency and sublative
fractional radiofrequency for acne scars in Asian skin. J Cosmet
Dermatol. 2016;15:102–7.
123. Goel A, Gatne V. Use of nanofractional radiofrequency for the
treatment of acne scars in Indian skin. J Cosmet Dermatol.
2017;16:186–92.
124. Faghihi G, Nouraei S, Asilian A, Keyvan S, Abtahi-Naeini B,
Rakhshanpour M, et al. Efficacy of punch elevation combined
with fractional carbon dioxide laser resurfacing in facial
atrophic acne scarring: a randomized split-face clinical study.
Indian J Dermatol. 2015;60:473–8.
125. Solotoff S. Treatment of pitted acne scarring-postauricular
punch grafts followed by dermabrasion. J Dermatol Surg Oncol.
1986;12:1079.
126. O’Daniel TG. Multimodal management of atrophic acne scar-
ring in the aging face. Aesth Plast Surg. 2011;35:1143–50.
127. Ibrahim ZA, Eltatawy RA, Ghaly NR, Abd El-Naby NM, Abou
El Fetouh HM, Abd Elateef AE, et al. Autologus bone marrow
stem cells in atrophic acne scars: a pilot study. J Dermatol Treat.
2015;26:260–5.
128. Munavalli GS, Smith S, Maslowski JM, Weiss RA. Successful
treatment of depressed, distensible acne scars using autologous
fibroblasts: a multi-site, prospective, double blind, placebo-
controlled clinical trial. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:1226–36.
S. Bhargava et al.
129. Stoddard MA, Herrmann J, Moy L, Moy R. Improvement of
atrophic acne scars in skin of color using topical synthetic epi-
dermal growth factor (EGF) serum: a pilot study. J Drugs
Dermatol. 2017;16:322–6.
130. Zaleski-Larsen LA, Fabi SG, McGraw T, Taylor M. Acne scar
treatment: a multimodality approach tailored to scar type. Der-
matol Surg. 2016;42:139–49.
131. Taub AF, Garretson CB. Treatment of acne scars of skin types ii
to v by sublative fractional bipolar radiofrequency and bipolar
radiofrequency combined with diode laser. J Clin Aesthet Der-
matol. 2011;4:18–27.
132. Yeung CK, Chan NP, Shek SY, Chan HH. Evaluation of com-
bined fractional radiofrequency and fractional laser treatment
for acne scars in Asians. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44:622–30.
133. Peterson JD, Palm MD, Kiripolsky MG, Guiha IC, Goldman
MP. Evaluation of the effect of fractional laser with radiofre-
quency and fractionated radiofrequency on the improvement of
acne scars. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37:1260–7.
134. Taylor MB, Zaleski-Larsen L, McGraw TA. Single session
treatment of rolling acne scars using tumescent anesthesia, 20%
trichloroacetic acid, extensive subcision, and fractional CO2
laser. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:S70–4.
135. Anupama YG, Wahab AJ. Effectiveness of CO2 laser with
subcision in patients with acne scars. J Cosmet Laser Ther.
2016;18:367–71.
136. Nilforoushzadeh MA, Faghihi G, Jaffary F, Haftbaradaran E,
Hoseini SM, Mazaheri N. Fractional carbon dioxide laser and its
combination with subcision in improving atrophic acne scars.
Adv Biomed Res. 2017;6:20.
137. Garg S, Baveja S. Combination therapy in the management of
atrophic acne scars. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2014;7:18–23.
138. Faghihi G, Poostiyan N, Asilian A, Abtahi-Naeini B, Shahbazi
M, Iraji F, et al. Efficacy of fractionated microneedle radiofre-
quency with and without adding subcision for the treatment of
atrophic facial acne scars: a randomized split-face clinical study.
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017;16:223–9.
139. Sobanko JF, Alster TS. Management of acne scarring, part I: a
comparative review of laser surgical approaches. Am J Clin
Dermatol. 2012;13:319–30.
140. Fitzpatrick RE. Treatment of inflamed hypertrophic scars using
intralesional 5-FU. Dermatol Surg. 1999;25:224–32.
141. Alster TS, Handrick C. Laser treatment of hypertrophic scars,
keloids, and striae. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2000;19:287–92.
142. Shih PY, Chen HH, Chen CH, Hong HS. Rapid recurrence of
keloid after pulse dye laser treatment. Dermatol Surg.
2008;34:1124–7.
143. Goodman GJ. Treatment of acne scarring. Int J Dermatol.
2011;50:1179–94.
144. Kearney C, Brew D. Single-session combination treatment with
intense pulsed light and nonablative fractional photothermolysis:
a split-face study. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38:1002–9.
145. Alster TS, Mcmeekin TO. Improvement of facial acne scars by
the 585 nm flashlamp-pumped pulsed dye laser. J Am Acad
Dermatol. 1996;35:79–81.
146. Park KY, Ko EJ, Seo SJ, Hong CK. Comparison of fractional,
nonablative, 1550-nm laser and 595-nm pulsed dye laser for the
treatment of facial erythema resulting from acne: a split-face,
evaluator-blinded, randomized pilot study. J Cosmet Laser Ther.
2014;16:120–3.
147. Rao J. Treatment of acne scarring. Facial Plast Surg Clin North
Am. 2011;19:275–91.
148. Alexis AF, Coley MK, Nijhawan RI, Luke JD, Shah SK, Argobi
YA, et al. Nonablative fractional laser resurfacing for acne
scarring in patients with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes IV–VI.
Dermatol Surg. 2016;42:392–402.
149. Cohen BE, Elbuluk N. Microneedling in skin of color: a review
of uses and efficacy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:348–55.
150. Saluja SS, Walker ML, Summers EM, Tristani-Firouzi P, Smart
DR. Safety of non-ablative fractional laser for acne scars within
1 month after treatment with oral isotretinoin: a randomized
split-face controlled trial. Lasers Surg Med. 2017;49:886–90.
151. Spring LK, Krakowski AC, Alam M, Bhatia A, Brauer J, Cohen
J, et al. Isotretinoin and timing of procedural interventions: a
systematic review with consensus recommendations. JAMA
Dermatol. 2017;153:802–9.
Acne Scar Management