RE: Fraxel Repair vs Erbium Yag Laser: downtime and results

By FairestOfAll on 09 Dec 2008

What is the difference between the Fraxel Repair and the Erbuim Yag Laser in terms of results (mainly for fine lines, texture, pores, and scars) and downtime?

View 2 doctor answers to Fraxel Repair Vs Erbium Yag Laser: Downtime and Results

Comments (3)

FairestOfAll 11 Dec 2008

Yes... I agree, excellent response. Thank you for addressing my question.

chardy 10 Dec 2008

Excellent response, Dr. Groff, to Fairest of All's question regarding the difference between all the lasers out there used for facial rejuvenation. I just might have to make the drive to SD for a consult. Just concerned about the 2 hr drive back should I decide to do the fraxel repair and the subsequent follow up visits. Got a jet??? Thanks again for the clear and concise description.

cbanda 10 Dec 2008

Some basics first: The Fraxel Re:pair is an ablative fractionated CO2 laser. A fair comparison would be to a fractionated ablative Er:Yag laser. My experience is with Sciton's ProFractional XC. The difference between the two technologies is that CO2 lasers always produce heat whereas Er:Yag lasers may or may not produce heat. In fact the ProFractional XC can be set to produce enough heat to emulate a CO2 laser on the one extreme or to produce no heat at all on the other extreme. To answer your question, though, the results and downtime will be similar. Your decision should be based on other factors. People of ethnic origin or mix other than Caucasian should probably not consider a CO2 laser. Fractionated ablative Erbium technology expands to darker skin patients the availability of ablative fractional skin resurfacing. Ablative skin resurfacing is clearly one area in the field of laser medicine and surgery where there is need for profound knowledge and probably experience on the practitioner's part to get desired results. The potential of lasting damage and significant injury is high. Incidentally the results can be most pleasing and dramatic indeed. That said, the medical community does not have a consensus to date as to which technology would be considered the gold standard. Review of the medical literature at the annual conference of ASLMS (American Society of Laser Medicine and Surgery) in April 2008 clearly indicated this. The current debate in the medical community is whether, in fact, heat is or is not benefial.