Early Fractional Ablative Laser for Skin Cancer Excision Scars: A Randomized Split-Scar Study.

BACKGROUND: Fractional ablative laser resurfacing has been shown to improve the final cosmetic appearance of surgical scars, but optimal timing is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical scars treated with fractional carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) laser performed on Day 0 and Day 14. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, split-scar, physician-blinded study of 30 surgical scars on the limbs. Scars halves received fractional CO 2 laser on either Day 0 or Day 14. Scar assessment at 6 months evaluated patient preference, physician modified Manchester Scar Scale (MMSS) score, and quantitative scar analysis on histology (fractal dimension [F D ] and lacunarity [L] analysis). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in patient assessment (54% preferred Day 0 side, 46% preferred Day 14 side, p = .58) or physician assessment (mean MMSS 8.4 for Day 0 vs 8.7 for Day 14, p = .28). Fractal dimensions were similar for both interventions (mean 1.778 for Day 0 vs 1.781 for Day 14, p = .80). Lacunarity was similar for both interventions (mean 0.368 for Day 0 vs 0.345 for Day 14, p = .44). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study with wounds limited to limbs of skin Phototype I-II subjects; 4 of whom were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative CO 2 laser is noninferior to Day 14 laser resurfacing for surgical scar treatment.

Retrospective Study of Punch Scoring Versus Freehand Approach for First Stage Mohs Micrographic Surgery.

Objective: The objective was to observe whether there is a difference in the number of subjects requiring more than one stage of Mohs micrographic surgery for small lesion nonmelanoma skin cancers using the punch scoring method versus freehand approach. Design: Retrospective review. Setting: Outpatient Mohs Clinic. Participants: Thirty patients with small lesion (<5mm) basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma who had Mohs micrographic surgery using either the punch scoring method (15) for scoring the first layer or the freehand method (15). Measurements: Differences between the two groups were evaluated by the number of subjects requiring more than one stage and the reason for any additional stages. Results: There was no observed difference in the number of subjects requiring more than one Mohs stage between the punch scoring group and the freehand group. Conclusion: Dermatologic surgeons can use the punch scoring method or the freehand approach for scoring small lesion Mohs based on provider preference.

Evidence-based, non-surgical treatments for vitiligo: a review.

Vitiligo is an acquired pigmentary disorder characterized by depigmented macules and patches secondary to the loss of functional melanocytes. It is a chronic disease that affects between 0.1% and 2% of the general population, affecting both sexes and all races. The appearance and the unpredictable course are psychologically and socially devastating. The success of current therapeutic options is limited. The objective of this review was to assess non-surgical treatments of vitiligo and to determine if comparing these studies can lead to (1) practical applications in the clinical setting and (2) recommendations for future research including study design and topics to be investigated further. Combination therapies were found to be more effective than monotherapy, and most combinations included a form of phototherapy, of which narrow-band-UVB was found to be most effective with the least adverse effects. Topical treatment with corticosteroids, immunomodulators, vitamin D analogs, and psoralens had mixed outcomes. Oral therapies including antioxidants were helpful adjuvants to treatment. Studies lacked consistent design, mechanism of disease assessment, and long-term follow-up. Sample size was also frequently limited. This review found that while several non-surgical therapies exist for the treatment of vitiligo, their usefulness, especially in the long term, is not well understood. Those studies that were able to elicit repigmentation often lacked an assessment on quality of life and/or patient satisfaction. More standardized methods of study design and assessment are needed to compare outcomes and make definitive conclusions on treatment effectiveness.