A woman enjoying ocean view at the beach

Minimally invasive interventions for atrophic acne scars: a PubMed/PMC-based systematic evidence review and exploratory network meta-analysis toward phenotype-guided interpretation

A network meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials of minimally invasive treatments for depressed acne scars found no treatment reliably better than another, and the authors state that no dependable ranking of treatments exists.

Liu Y, Zhang Z, Zhao J. Frontiers in surgery, 2026.

What it means for a patient

  • Laser with poly-L-lactic acid, laser with platelet-rich plasma, and microneedling with a chemical peel had lower average scar scores than laser alone.
  • None of these differences was statistically certain.
  • The authors state the evidence cannot rank acne scar treatments against each other.
  • No trial measured which treatment works best for which scar shape.
  • Limits: 9 trials, low to very low certainty, and a search limited to PubMed and PMC.

Why this paper matters

It combined randomized trials of acne scar treatments into one network and reported that current evidence does not support a treatment ranking.

Overview

Depressed (atrophic) acne scars differ in structure from patient to patient. The authors compared minimally invasive, energy-based and regenerative treatments, and discussed how scar type might guide future trials. They searched only PubMed and PMC, so eligible studies in other databases may have been missed.

Findings

  • PROSPERO-registered review (CRD420261471957); PubMed/MEDLINE and PMC searched from inception to 20 June 2026.
  • Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, trial registries and gray literature were not systematically searched.
  • Included: randomized and split-face randomized trials that reported extractable scar-severity outcomes.
  • Network: 9 trials, 19 treatment arms, 11 direct comparisons and 10 nodes.
  • Versus laser alone, laser plus PLLA: SMD -0.69 (95% CI -1.55 to 0.18).
  • Versus laser alone, laser plus PRP: SMD -0.20 (95% CI -0.81 to 0.40).
  • Versus laser alone, microneedling plus chemical peel: SMD -0.14 (95% CI -1.34 to 1.07).
  • All confidence and prediction intervals crossed zero, the point of no difference.
  • Heterogeneity was moderate to substantial (tau² = 0.124; I² = 65.3%).
  • Most nodes were supported by 1 or 2 studies, and sensitivity analyses changed the top-ranked treatment.
  • CINeMA rated the comparisons as low or very low confidence.
  • No trial reported results by scar shape, so scar-type-based comparison could not be tested.

Terms

  • Atrophic acne scar: a depressed scar left by acne.
  • Network meta-analysis: a method that compares several treatments at once, using direct and indirect comparisons across trials.
  • Node: one treatment in the network.
  • Standardized mean difference (SMD): the size of a difference between treatments on a common scale; below zero here means less scar severity.
  • Confidence interval (CI): the range in which the true value likely falls.
  • PLLA (poly-L-lactic acid): an injectable that prompts the body to make collagen.
  • PRP (platelet-rich plasma): a concentrate of the patient's own blood platelets, applied or injected to support healing.
  • Microneedling: making many tiny punctures in the skin with fine needles.
  • Split-face trial: a study that treats each side of the face differently in the same patient.
  • CINeMA: a system for rating confidence in network meta-analysis results.

Newest papers on fractional resurfacing

The latest studies on the same subject.

2026
A comparative study of efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser with and without subcision in treatment of facial acne scars
Johnson RA, Swaroop MR, Yogesh D, Panigrahi S, Namratha G, Greeshma J, et al. · J Cosmet Laser Ther · PMID 42178734

More plain summaries on fractional resurfacing

2026
Topical Carboxytherapy as an Adjunct to Skin Recovery Post-CO2 Laser Fractional Resurfacing
Hernandez-Rovira B, Villamaria E, Purushothaman KR, Ziebart R, Ozarslan B, Shamban A, et al. · J Drugs Dermatol · Randomized Controlled Trial · PMID 42696341 · Plain summary