The Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between General and Topical Anesthesia on Micro-Plasma Radiofrequency Treatment for Hypertrophic Scar: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background While micro-plasma radiofrequency (MPR) treatment has a significant impact on hypertrophic scars, patients often require anesthesia to alleviate substantial discomfort. Currently, patients with similar degrees of scarring may choose surface anesthesia or general anesthesia based on their personal preferences. Nevertheless, the effectiveness and safety of different anesthesia modalities remain uncertain. Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of both general and surface anesthesia in MPR treatment for hypertrophic scars. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 101 patients diagnosed with hypertrophic scars who underwent MPR with different anesthesia methods. The primary measures of efficacy included the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores assessed before the first treatment and six months after the final treatment. Pain relief was evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores. Safety was assessed by comparing the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. Results Patients in the general anesthesia group showed a significant difference in scar pigmentation 6 months after the treatment and lower pain level than those in the surface anesthesia group in the treatment of MPR. The difference in safety was not statistically significant. After adjusting for confounding factors and propensity score matching, the outcome of VSS and VAS scores was stable. Conclusion General anesthesia, as opposed to surface anesthesia, appears to enhance both the effectiveness and safety of MPR while reducing postoperative pain in the treatment of hypertrophic scars. For patients with heightened pain sensitivity, general anesthesia may be the preferred treatment option. Level of Evidence II This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266 .