Fractional laser therapy versus microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions

Scarring caused by trauma, burns, surgery, and other dermal fibrotic conditions can lead to functional limitation and cosmetic distress. The comparative effectiveness of fractional laser therapy and microneedling for non-acne scars remains uncertain.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing fractional laser therapy with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. Following a PROSPERO-registered protocol and PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to May 2026 without language restrictions. Parallel-group and split-body randomized trials were eligible. Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes.

Nine randomized controlled trials were included. Fractional laser therapy showed a statistically significant advantage over microneedling in scar scores (SMD = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.83, -0.15], P = 0.02) and collagen fiber regeneration (SMD = -2.14, 95% CI [-3.57, -0.72], P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found between the two interventions for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse events. Subgroup analyses did not show clear or consistent significant differences according to laser type, including comparisons between traditional and non-traditional fractional lasers and between CO₂ and non-CO₂ fractional laser systems. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across several outcomes, indicating considerable between-study variability.

Based on currently available randomized evidence, fractional laser therapy may provide superior improvement in overall scar severity and collagen fiber regeneration compared with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. However, no clear differences were observed for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse-event incidence. Given the substantial heterogeneity, limited sample sizes, and possible reporting bias, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further large, standardized trials with longer follow-up are needed.