The alternative ear-piercing technique by using superpulsed carbon dioxide laser: a comparative study with spring-loaded gun

Abstract

Ear piercing (EP) is increasing in popularity among teenagers. Techniques for EP should be selected carefully to prevent possible complications. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of EP techniques between CO(2) laser and spring-loaded gun. This is a prospective and comparative clinical trial. Under local anesthesia, EP was performed on left ear with CO(2) laser (20 watt/single mode) and on right ear with spring-loaded gun. With visual analog scale (VAS, 0-10) and questionnaire, post-operative pain and wound healing status were assessed immediately, 1, 2, 4 and 8 weeks after EP procedure. Fourteen subjects (14/17, 82.4%) completed the whole study. Immediately after the procedure, the level of post-operative pain (VAS) was 3.2 for CO(2) laser and 1.5 for spring-loaded gun (p < 0.05). In CO(2) laser group, pain severity decreased to 0.4, 0.1, 0, and 0, while in spring-loaded gun group, the decrease was only to 0.7, 0.6, 0.3 and 0 at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks, respectively. Duration of post-operative pain was 3.8 and 17.5 days for CO(2) laser and spring-loaded gun, respectively (p < 0.05). There was no major complication like infection, bleeding or hypertrophic scar. Our study suggests that CO(2) laser is a precise, simple, safe and aseptic technique for EP. It has a lower level and shorter duration of post-operative pain, when compared with spring-loaded gun. Therefore, CO(2) assisted EP is an alternative and feasible technique in our daily clinical practice. The level of evidence: 2b.

Piercing of the Ear Using Carbon Dioxide Laser

“…Accordingly, demands for a safer, standardized method which can be used in piercing has been growing, and CO2 laser has been introduced as an alternative method for ear piercing. 3 It was shown that the severity and duration of pain after ear piercing was less in the CO2 laser pierced group compared to the spring-loaded gun pierced group. 3 Wound healing was also better in CO2 laser treated sites with less scar contraction compared to scalpel wounds.…”

“…3 It was shown that the severity and duration of pain after ear piercing was less in the CO2 laser pierced group compared to the spring-loaded gun pierced group. 3 Wound healing was also better in CO2 laser treated sites with less scar contraction compared to scalpel wounds. 3 10,600 nm CO2 laser is absorbed by water resulting in vaporization of intra/extracellular fluid and disintegration of cells.…”

“…The procedure is not standardized and therefore subjects are easily exposed to various complications including pain, bleeding, infection, contact dermatitis, keloids, traumatic tear, elongation of the piercing site, cyst formation, and granulomas. [3][4][5][6] A survey which was performed against 115 Korean female college students reported that 96.5% of them were at least once pierced in the ear throughout their life, 5 and results from A B Fig. 4.…”

“…There are no regulations or medical guidelines and therefore potential risks of bacterial or viral infections even including hepatitis or HIV always exists. 3,7 Furthermore, these procedures done by non-medical personnels can be inaccurate with asymmetry and can cause tears of tissues resulting in many medical and cosmetic complications.…”

“…However, despite interest about body piercing for cosmetic purposes is growing, exact statistics of these procedures and information about its safety and associated medical complications is insufficient. 3 Piercing practices are mostly performed in a nonstandardized way in beauty shops or accessory shops rather than in clinics. Reports of complications or side effects after piercing are also increasing as the frequency of these procedures increase.…”