Joong Min Suh1, Seong Hoon Park2, Jun Won Lee2, Seong Joo Lee2, In Suck Suh2, Jong Wook Lee3, Hii Sun Jeong4. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, School of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. hsjeongps@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even though scars are major issues for patients who undergo facial lacerations, programs for their prevention and early management are not well established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of prophylactic scar assessments and early scar interventions in patients with lacerations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 116 patients underwent suture line and scar prevention treatment in the emergency room from 2014 to 2015. In the retrospective study, 46 patients who met all the criteria were included in the study. They were assigned to one of the following two scar prevention programs: the standard scar program for prevention, which included taping, silicone sheets, and ointments, and the multimodality scar program for treatment, which included triamcinolone, botulinum toxins, or CO2 fractional lasers. The patterns of early scar program were investigated for the standard scar prevention program and the multimodality scar management program, and we evaluated the scar assessment scores of the patients at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Scar scores for the patients who received multimodality scar management showed statistically significant improvements in Patient Scar Assessment (PSA) scales, Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scales (SBSES), Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores, and Visual Analog Scar (VAS) scales (the p values were 0.008, 0.007, 0.017, and 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: The multimodality scar program is more effective for scar prevention than the standard scar program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Even though scars are major issues for patients who undergo facial lacerations, programs for their prevention and early management are not well established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of prophylactic scar assessments and early scar interventions in patients with lacerations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 116 patients underwent suture line and scar prevention treatment in the emergency room from 2014 to 2015. In the retrospective study, 46 patients who met all the criteria were included in the study. They were assigned to one of the following two scar prevention programs: the standard scar program for prevention, which included taping, silicone sheets, and ointments, and the multimodality scar program for treatment, which included triamcinolone, botulinum toxins, or CO2 fractional lasers. The patterns of early scar program were investigated for the standard scar prevention program and the multimodality scar management program, and we evaluated the scar assessment scores of the patients at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Scar scores for the patients who received multimodality scar management showed statistically significant improvements in Patient Scar Assessment (PSA) scales, Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scales (SBSES), Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores, and Visual Analog Scar (VAS) scales (the p values were 0.008, 0.007, 0.017, and 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: The multimodality scar program is more effective for scar prevention than the standard scar program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Thomas A Mustoe; Rodney D Cooter; Michael H Gold; F D Richard Hobbs; Albert-Adrien Ramelet; Peter G Shakespeare; Maurizio Stella; Luc Téot; Fiona M Wood; Ulrich E Ziegler Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Ali Al-Attar; Sarah Mess; John Michael Thomassen; C Lisa Kauffman; Steven P Davison Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: James A Bush; D Angus McGrouther; V Leroy Young; David N Herndon; Michael T Longaker; Thomas A Mustoe; Mark W J Ferguson Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Michael H Gold; Michael McGuire; Thomas A Mustoe; Andrea Pusic; Mukta Sachdev; Jill Waibel; Crystal Murcia Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Regina M Fearmonti; Jennifer E Bond; Detlev Erdmann; L Scott Levin; Salvatore V Pizzo; Howard Levinson Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Ali M Soltani; Cameron S Francis; Arash Motamed; Ashley L Karatsonyi; Jeffrey A Hammoudeh; Pedro A Sanchez-Lara; John F Reinisch; Mark M Urata Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Karel M Van Praet; Markus Kofler; Serdar Akansel; Matteo Montagner; Alexander Meyer; Simon H Sündermann; Volkmar Falk; Jörg Kempfert Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2022-07-09