Micro-plasma radiofrequency and silicone gel dressings for treating early post-traumatic facial scars: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although different options are available for treating post-traumatic facial scars, they remain a therapeutic challenge. AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of combined therapy using micro-plasma radiofrequency (MPRF) technology and silicone gel (SG) dressings for treating post-traumatic facial scars. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at a single center. Patients with facial injuries in the outpatient and emergency units of the Department of Plastic Surgery at our hospital underwent debridement and cosmetic sutures performed by the same surgeon from October 2020 to October 2021. In the first arm, patients with facial injuries were treated with MPRF technology and SG, and in the second arm, they were treated with SG dressings alone. We observed the safety and effectiveness of these treatments in both arms. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients with facial injuries were treated with MPRF technology and SG dressings (combined treatment group), and 28 patients were treated with SG dressings alone (SG group). After 6 months of treatment, the Vancouver Scar Scale scores of the combined treatment and SG groups were 1.38 ± 0.71 and 4.39 ± 0.50, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). After 6 months of treatment, the effectiveness rate in the combined treatment group was 93.8%, which was significantly higher than that in the SG group (67.9%), and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). No obvious adverse reactions occurred in the two arms. CONCLUSION: Treating early post-traumatic facial scars with combined MPRF technology and SG is significantly better than treating them with SG alone; moreover, the combined therapy is safe and effective.

Comparison of LeniScar Silicone Stick (AnsCare) With Traditional Silicone Gel (Dermatix Ultra) in Wound Scar Prevention and Removal.

BACKGROUND: As we all know, the numbers of aesthetic surgery are increasing around the world. After the surgery, the scar would be a problematic issue for both the surgeons and the patients. Silicone has proven to be effective for keloids, hypertrophic scars, and prevention of scar formation in many literatures for a long time. In terms of scar prevention, silicone has been used in the form of silicone sheets in early times, which is later improved to be the form of silicone gel with the advantage of easier usage. Although silicone gel has improved greatly in the aspect of appearance and convenience of the silicone sheets, there are still some disadvantages of the gel form. Therefore, the LeniScar silicone stick (AnsCare) is invented. OBJECTIVE: This article aimed to compare the results of scar treatment and prevention of the AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick versus the traditional silicone gel (Dermatix Ultra). METHODS: This study was a prospective, nonblinded, randomized clinical study. There were a total of 68 patients from September 2018 to January 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups with AnsCare (n = 43) and Dermatix (n = 25), who both were required to schedule regular outpatient clinic follow-up, and photographs were taken before use, 1, 2, and 3 months later after the usage for the record. The physician assessed the scar condition by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The scores of the VSS were further analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The overall P value of total score of VSS was 0.635, which indicates that there is no significant difference in using AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick versus Dermatix Ultra silicone gel in terms of scar prevention and treatment. Individual items of VSS such as pliability, height, vascularity, and pigmentation all show no significant statistical difference in the 2 treatment products, with P = 0.980, 0.778, 0.528, and 0.366, respectively. CONCLUSION: Traditional Dermatix Ultra silicone gel has been effective in the treatment of scar formation. AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick is statistically not different from the Dermatix Ultra silicone gel when comparing the treatment results of scar prevention. Furthermore, the AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick has the advantages of being time-saving with no need to wait for it to dry and application of precise amount to precise location, preventing waste or overuse.

Stem Cell-Enriched Hybrid Breast Reconstruction Reduces Risk for Capsular Contracture in a Hybrid Breast Model.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid breast reconstruction (HBR) combines silicone implants with fat grafting to improve implant coverage, treating local tissue deficiencies and leading to a more natural breast appearance. Recent data also indicated less capsular contracture after HBR. The authors developed a novel technique and animal model of cell-assisted (CA) HBR to illuminate its effects on capsular contracture. METHODS: Animals received silicone implants in a dorsal submuscular pocket. Although animals of the HBR group received fat grafting around the implant without stem cell enrichment, rats of the CA-HBR1 and the CA-HBR2 groups received stem cell-enriched fat grafting with 2 × 10 6 and 4 × 10 6 adipose-derived stem cells immediately after implant insertion. On day 60, animals underwent sonography and elastography imaging and were euthanized, and outcome analysis was performed by means of histology, immunohistochemistry, chemical collagen quantification, and gene expression analysis. RESULTS: With this novel technique, long-term survival of adipose-derived stem cells within the implant pocket was demonstrated after 60 days after implant insertion. CA-HBR led to significantly reduced thickness and collagen density of capsular contractures. In addition, CA-HBR resulted in reduced fibrotic responses with less occurrence of collagen type I and transforming growth factor-ß in capsule tissue. Moreover, the addition of stem cells suppressed fibrotic and inflammatory responses on a genetic level with significant underexpression of collagen type I and transforming growth factor-ß1. CONCLUSIONS: With this new technique and animal model, the authors observed a preventive effect on capsular contracture substantiating the basis of clinical outcomes of HBR. The authors propose that the addition of stem cells to HBR might booster its beneficial results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Stem cell-enriched fat grafting around silicone implants may reduce the risk for capsular contracture after silicone breast implantation. While fat grafting alone already shows beneficial effects, the addition of stem cells to the fat graft can potentiate this effect.

Silicone gel sheeting for treating keloid scars.

BACKGROUND: Keloid scarring is one of the most common types of pathological scarring. Keloid scars that fail to heal can affect a person's physical and psychological function by causing pain, pruritus, contractures, and cosmetic disfigurement. Silicone gel sheeting (SGS) is made from medical-grade silicone reinforced with a silicone membrane backing and is one of the most commonly used treatments for keloid scars. However, there is no up-to-date systematic review assessing the effectiveness of SGS for keloid scars. A clear and rigorous review of current evidence is required to guide clinicians, healthcare managers and people with keloid scarring. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of silicone gel sheeting for the treatment of keloid scars compared with standard care or other therapies. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people with any keloid scars and assessed the effectiveness of SGS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence. We resolved initial disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes were 16 and 20 participants. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in causes for scarring (e.g. surgery, infected wounds, and trauma), site (e.g. chest and back), and ages of scars. The duration of follow-up was three and four and a half months. The included studies reported three comparisons; SGS compared with no treatment, SGS compared with non-silicone gel sheeting (a dressing similar to SGS but which does not contain silicone), and SGS compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide. One trial had a split-body design and one trial had an unclear design (resulting in a mix of paired and clustered data). The included studies reported limited outcome data for the primary review outcome of scar severity measured by health professionals and no data were reported for severity of scar measured by patients or adverse events. For secondary outcomes some data on pain were reported, but health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were not reported. Both trials had suboptimal outcome reporting, thus many domains in the risk of bias were assessed as unclear. All evidence was rated as being very low-certainty, mainly due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.  SGS compared with no treatment Two studies with 33 participants (76 scars) reported the severity of scar assessed by health professionals, and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for inconsistency, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). We are uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with no treatment (21 participants with 40 scars; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for inconsistency, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. SGS compared with non-SGS One study with 16 participants (25 scars) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity assessed by health professionals compared with non-SGS (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). We are also uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with non-SGS (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. SGS compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide One study with 17 participants (51 scars) reported scar severity assessed by health professionals, and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). This study also reported pain assessed by health professionals among 5 participants (15 scars) and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and twice for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of RCT evidence about the clinical effectiveness of SGS in the treatment of keloid scars. From the two studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of SGS compared with no treatment, non-SGS, or intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide makes any difference in the treatment of keloid scars. Evidence from the included studies is of very low certainty, mainly driven by the risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision due to small sample size. Further well-designed studies that have good reporting methodologies and address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are required to reduce uncertainty around decision-making in the use of SGS to treat keloid scars.

Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models.

Optimal burn scar management has the potential to markedly improve the lives of children, but can require substantial healthcare resources. The study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of three scar management interventions: pressure garment; topical silicone gel; combined pressure garment and topical silicone gel therapy, alongside a randomised controlled trial of these interventions. Participants were children (n = 153) referred for burn scar management following grafting, spontaneous healing after acute burn injury, or reconstructive surgery. Healthcare resource use was costed from a health service perspective (6-months post-burn time-horizon). The mean total scar management cost was lowest in the topical silicone gel group ($382.87 (95% CI $337.72, $443.29)) compared to the pressure garment ($1327.02 (95% CI $1081.46, $1659.95)) and combined intervention $1605.97 ($1077.65, $2694.23)) groups. There were no significant between-group differences in Quality Adjusted Life Year estimates. There was a 70% probability that topical silicone gel dominated pressure garment therapy (was cheaper and more effective), a 29% probability that pressure garment therapy dominated combined therapy, and a 63% probability that topical silicone gel dominated combined therapy. In conclusion, topical silicone gel was the cheaper intervention, and may be favoured in the absence of clear clinical effect favouring pressure garment therapy or a combination of these management approaches.Trial registration: ACTRN12616001100482 (prospectively registered).

Prevention and management of hypertrophic scars after laparoscopic surgery using silicone gel sheets: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of modified silicone gel sheets applied to hypertrophic scars and keloids following laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery and who had either conventional or modified silicone gel sheets affixed to their surgical lesions for 6 months postoperatively (treatment groups), and control patients who had not received postsurgical treatment involving silicone gel sheets, were enrolled. The surgical wounds were assessed visually and using the Japan Scar Workshop (JSW) Scar Scale. Patients were interviewed before, 3 months after, and 6 months after sheet affixation. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were included, comprising 15 patients per group. Both silicone gel-sheet groups had significantly lower JSW Scar Scale scores at 3 and 6 months after affixation compared with controls. The scores were not significantly different between the conventional and modified treatment groups and no adverse events were observed in the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Modified silicone gel sheets were more effective than controls and comparable to conventional gel sheets, and there were no adverse events related to laparoscopic surgical wounds in the improved silicone gel sheet group, demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of the modified silicone gel sheets.

Glucocorticosteroid and Silicone Gel During Patch Application Without Clinical Scar Improvement After Central Venous Catheter Removal: A Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We studied whether glucocorticosteroid during patch occlusion has a beneficial effect on scar outcome in children and adolescents treated for cancer. METHODS: A double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was performed. The main outcome was the Vancouver Scar Scale. Secondary outcomes were scar width and scar quality measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. The patients were divided into an intervention groups and a control group. The intervention group was randomized into active and placebo group. The active treatment consisted of cream with glucocorticosteroid and fusidic acid. The placebo treatment consisted of cream with fusidic acid. Both groups received silicone gel patch after central venous catheter removal. The control group received no specific skin care. RESULTS: Assessment at 12 months showed that the intervention group had a significantly lower Vancouver Scar Scale and a smaller scar (0,1 cm) compared with the control group ( P =0.00, P =0.02) but no benefit of glucocorticosteroid. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale showed no significant difference between the intervention and control groups ( P =0.84, P =0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Silicone gel sheet alone or in combination with application of glucocorticosteroid during sheet occlusion does not clinically improve scar outcome after removal of central venous catheter in children treated for neoplastic diseases.

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children 12-months postburn: A parallel group randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The longer-term effectiveness of silicone and pressure burn scar interventions was evaluated at 12-months postburn. DESIGN: Parallel group, randomised trial. SETTING: Hospital outpatient clinics, research centre. PARTICIPANTS: Children referred for burn scar management following grafted or spontaneously healed acute burn injuries or scar reconstruction surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to: (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were scar thickness (blinded ultrasound measurement) and itch intensity (caregiver proxy-report, numeric rating scale). RESULTS: Of 153 participants randomised who received the interventions (silicone n = 51, pressure garment n = 49, combined n = 53), 86 were followed-up at 12-months postburn (n = 34, n = 28, n = 24). No differences were identified for the primary outcomes using intention-to-treat analysis. Scar thickness mean difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.00 cm (-0.04, 0.05); -0.03 cm (-0.07, 0.02); 0.03 cm (-0.02, 0.08) and scar itch = 0.09 (-0.88, 1.06); -0.21 (-1.21, 0.79); 0.30 (-0.73, 1.32) for silicone vs pressure; silicone vs combined and combined vs pressure respectively. No serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSION: Similar to short-term results, the combined intervention offered no statistically or clinically significant benefit for improving the primary outcomes compared to each intervention alone. No differences in the primary outcomes were identified between the silicone and pressure alone groups.

Effect of Soft Silicone Foam Dressings on Intraoperatively Acquired Pressure Injuries: A Randomized Study in Patients Undergoing Spinal Surgery.

The use of prophylactic dressings to help prevent intraoperatively acquired pressure injuries (IAPIs) merits further study. PURPOSE: To examine how the use of a soft silicone foam dressing affects the development of IAPIs in patients undergoing spinal surgery to obtain baseline data supporting evidence-based nursing care. METHODS: Using a self-controlled study design, 64 patients requiring thoracic or lumbar surgery on a Wilson frame at a hospital in Seoul, South Korea, were recruited between February 12 and September 1, 2018; 50 patients were eligible. Basic demographic, health, and surgical data were obtained. Before surgery, the left or right side chest and iliac crest areas were randomly assigned to be covered with a soft silicone foam dressing. The areas were assessed at 2 time points: immediately after and 30 minutes after surgery. If an IAPI was present at 30 minutes after surgery, all sites were reevaluated after 7 days. RESULTS: The majority of participants were male (26 participants, 52%). Average patient age was 62.54 (± 13.83) years, with a body mass index of 24.32 (± 4.23) kg/m2. Average length of surgery was 218.4 (± 137) minutes. Immediately after surgery, 26 IAPIs were observed and there was a significant difference between dressed and non-dressed chest areas for the number of IAPIs (4% vs. 28%; P = .002). After 30 minutes, the total number of IAPIs was 20 and the difference between IAPIs in the iliac crest area was significant between dressed and non-dressed areas (0% vs. 14%; P = .012). After 1 week, there were no chest or iliac crest IAPIs in the areas that had been covered by a dressing; however, 8 chest (61.5%) and 4 iliac crest (30.8%) area IAPIs remained when no dressing had been applied. The majority of IAPIs were stage 1 at all assessment times. After 1 week, 1 IAPI had evolved into a stage 3 injury. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that many stage 1 IAPIs do resolve over time and that use of soft silicone foam dressings during spinal surgery can significantly reduce IAPI rates. Additional longitudinal studies are needed to help guide postoperative skin assessment intervals and increase the understanding about the evolution of stage 1 IAPIs.

Funnel usefulness in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using periareolar incision with prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with acellular dermal matrix.

BACKGROUND: The funnel has been used in esthetic breast surgery that requires a small incision. Recent advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques have led to more cases of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) through periareolar incision. However, prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is almost impossible with the periareolar approach. Funnels can also be useful for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. METHODS: NSM with periareolar incision and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction were performed with prepectoral implant placement between January 2017 and July 2019. The ADM full-wrapped anatomic textured implant was inserted using a funnel without additional incisions during surgery. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients were enrolled, including 2 who received bilateral breast reconstruction. All operations were successfully performed using funnels with minimal periareolar incisions. Anatomic textured implants (mean: 251.7 cc, range: 90-450 cc) wrapped in ADM can be effectively inserted in the prepectoral plane using a funnel. Two patients experienced delayed wound healing of the areola that was treated by conservative wound management. Patients also experienced less pain overall, and the cosmetic result was very good. Patient satisfaction scores were also very high. CONCLUSIONS: While the periareolar incision is esthetically pleasing, additional resection is often necessary. However, the use of funnels ensured that no additional incision was needed even in large implants. This subsequently led to better results in terms of pain and scarring. Prepectoral breast reconstruction involving complete implant coverage with ADM using a funnel through the periareolar approach represents a good alternative to the traditional dual plane subpectoral method. This method provides good patient satisfaction without adverse outcomes.

Comparison of Silicone Sheets and Paper Tape for the Management of Postoperative Scars: A Randomized Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of silicone sheets and paper tape in the prevention of postoperative cesarean section scars. METHODS: Patients undergoing horizontal cesarean section were included in this randomized controlled trial. Surgical wounds were divided into two halves. Patients randomly applied silicone sheets or paper tape to each side of their wound as assigned for 3 months. Wounds were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Researchers used the objective Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) to evaluate the scars and the subjective visual analog scale (VAS) to evaluate itch, pain, and scar appearance. RESULTS: No significant differences between the silicone sheet and paper tape groups were noted at postoperative follow-ups with respect to VSS scores. The silicone sheet group had significantly better VAS scores for scar appearance than the paper tape group at 6 (6.81 ± 1.47 vs 6.19 ± 1.62, P = .03) and 12 (6.88 ± 2.01 vs 6.2 ± 2.08, P = .04) months' follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The silicone sheet group showed statistically significant differences in comparison with the paper tape group in terms of scar appearance as determined by the VAS. However, the differences were too small to be clinically meaningful.

Reducing Radiation Dermatitis Using a Film-forming Silicone Gel During Breast Radiotherapy: A Pilot Randomized-controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To evaluate whether topical use of a film-forming silicone gel (StrataXRT®) could reduce radiation dermatitis compared to a moisturizing cream (X-derm®) in patients receiving whole breast radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 56 patients with breast cancer were randomized to use StrataXRT or X-derm. The severity of radiation dermatitis was graded using physiological skin parameters, clinician-assessed visual rating scales and patient-reported symptoms. Changes in these parameters from baseline to 4 weeks post-radiotherapy were evaluated every two weeks. RESULTS: Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed different patterns of changes in the erythema index (F=3.609, p=0.008) and melanin index (F=3.475, p=0.015). The post hoc analysis demonstrated a significantly lower erythema index and melanin index in the patients allocated to the StrataXRT group. CONCLUSION: The use of StrataXRT can reduce radiation dermatitis with respect to objectively measured physiological skin parameters. The results of the present study will support the feasibility of conducting a larger randomized controlled trial.

Efficacy of an Innovative Film-Forming Wound Dressing on Open Wounds.

Standards in post-surgery wound care management require a rapid healing process in order to prevent and minimize abnormal scarring. For the healing process to start as early as possible, the ideal dressing should be applied directly on the open wound and perfectly adapt to it. The authors report a case study series regarding the efficacy of a flexible film-forming wound dressing in the form of a gel (Stratamed®, Stratpharma AG, Switzerland) that is approved for the use on open wounds and injured skin. Evidence from the current study shows that, while remaining safe to use, the dressing was efficacious in promoting epithelialization and accelerated wound healing of areas in which skin integrity had been compromised, and at the same time prevented the formation of abnormal scars. Results were observed across a broad range of dermatologic surgical procedures. All treated conditions showed a beneficial outcome, as well as an overall favorable patient treatment perception.

How to improve patient safety and quality of care in breast implant surgery? First outcomes from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (2015-2017).

BACKGROUND: Although the use of breast implants is generally considered to be safe, breast implants are associated with short- and long-term complications. To evaluate and improve the quality of breast implant surgery, and increase our knowledge of implant performance, the national Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) was established in 2015. DBIR is one of the first up-and-running breast implant registries worldwide and follows an opt-out structure. OBJECTIVE: This article provides an overview of the first outcomes and experiences of the DBIR. METHODS: The national coverage of DBIR was studied using data from the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. The incidence rate of breast implants was calculated for 2016 and 2017, and patient, device, and surgery characteristics were compared between cosmetic breast augmentations or reconstructive indications. Four infection control, measures were selected to demonstrate the variation in the Dutch clinical practice. RESULTS: In 2016, 95% of the hospitals and 78% of the private clinics participated in DBIR. Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 15,049 patients and 30,541 breast implants were included. A minimum breast implant incidence rate of 1 per 1,691 women could be determined for 2017. The majority of devices were inserted for a cosmetic indication (85.2%). In general, patient, device, and surgery characteristics differed per indication group. Substantial variation was seen in the use of infection control measures (range 0-100%). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results obtained from DBIR show high national participation rates and support further developments toward the improvement of breast implant surgery and patient safety.

Seguridad, eficacia y tolerabilidad de un novedoso apósito de gel de silicona para uso posoperatorio en cirugía dermatológica / Safety, efficacy and tolerability of a novel silicone gel dressing for postoperative use in dermatological surgery

Durante muchos años, el gel de silicona ha tenido un rol primario en el tratamiento y la prevención de cicatrices anómalas en forma de cicatrices hipertróficas y queloides luego de la epitelización. Los autores publican los hallazgos preliminares sobre el uso de un novedoso apósito de gel de silicona grado médico que forma una película y que fue aprobado para ser usado en heridas abiertas y en lesiones de la piel como único tratamiento y en combinación con otros tratamientos previos a la reepitelización. Un estudio observacional de 105 pacientes analizó la efectividad del gel de silicona en la estimulación de la epitelización acelerada, la reducción de la respuesta inflamatoria y la prevención de la formación de cicatrices. El estudio se realizó en una variedad de intervenciones quirúrgicas dermatológicas. Las observaciones de los autores confirmaron el rol de la silicona en la aceleración de la cicatrización de heridas, la prevención de la formación de cicatrices y la utilidad de este nuevo apósito de silicona que forma una película cuando se lo combina con otras modalidades de tratamiento. (SKINmed. 2012; 10:S1- S7).

For many years, silicone gel has played a primary role in the treatment of prevention of abnormal scars in the form of after epithelialization. The authors publish the pre-elimination findings use of a novel medical grade silicone gel dressing that form a film that was approved for use in open wounds and in skin as the only treatment and in combination with other treatments prior to re-epithelialization. An observational study of 105 patients analyzed the effectiveness of silicone gel in the stimulation of accelerated epithelialization, reducing the inflammatory response and preventing the formation of scars. The study was conducted on a variety of dermatological surgeries. The authors' observations confirmed the role of silicone in acceleration of wound healing, prevention of the formation of the usefulness of this new silicone dressing that forms a film it is combined with other forms of treatment.

[ASSESSMENT OF COMBINED PROPHYLAXIS OF PATHOLOGICAL POSTOPERATIVE FACE SKIN SCARS ACCORDING TO THE VANCOUVER SCALE].

The aim of the research was to study the effectiveness of combined prophylaxis of pathological postoperative face skin scars according to the Vancouver scale. The research involved 29 patients, aging 16-48 years old, who underwent maxillofacial surgery by extraoral accesses with wound primary intention healing. The patients were divided into three groups: the control group, which involved the patients, who after the surgery did not undergo any preventive measures to avoid pathological skin scars development, and two study groups. The patients of the first study group underwent the monotherapy comprising three sessions of extracorporeal shock wave therapy once every 4-5 days. The patients of the second study group underwent three sessions of extracorporeal shock wave therapy once every 4-5 days and local use of silicone gel Strataderm. The Vancouver scale was used to evaluate clinically the effectiveness of the suggested methods of pathological scars development prevention. It involved evaluation (in points) of their consistency, pigmentation, and vascularization. The scars were assessed on the 7th, 30th day after the surgery and in 6 months. Positive results were attained in the patients of both study groups; they were manifested by increased elasticity and compliance of scars, pigmentation becoming of just about surrounding skin natural color, normalization of blood supply to scars, and more rapid disappearance of suture marks. However, these positive signs were more significant in the patients of the second study group that allowed us concluding that combined use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and local applying of silicone gel Strataderm was advisable.

Alternative Therapies to Fat Grafting in the Craniofacial Region.

Autologous fat grafting is a technique with various applications in the craniofacial region ranging from the treatment of wounds, scars, keloids, and soft tissue deformities. In this review, alternative therapies to fat grafting are discussed. These are composed of established therapies like silicone gel or sheeting, corticosteroids, cryotherapy, and laser therapy. Novel applications of negative pressure wound therapy, botulinum toxin A injection, and biologic agents are also reviewed.

Tratamiento exitoso con gel de silicona de heridas que no cicatrizan en el cuero cabelludo / Successful silicone gel treatment of wounds that do not heal on the scalp

La silicona podría tener propiedades ideales para estimular la cicatrización de heridas abiertas. Se presentan cuatro casos de heridas en el cuero cabelludo que no cicatrizaban y en todas se observaba tejido de granulación abundante y falta de migración epidérmica. La aplicación de un gel a base de silicona (Stratamed, Stratpharma, Basilea, Suiza), que forma una película directamente sobre la herida, a modo de monoterapia se asoció con una mejor cicatrización de la herida

The silicone could have ideal properties to stimulate the healing of open wounds. We present four cases of wounds on the scalp that did not heal and in all of them there was abundant granulation tissue and lack of epidermal migration. The application as a monotherapy of a silicone-based gel (Stratamed, Stratpharma, Basel, Switzerland), which forms a film directly on the wound, was associated with better wound healing