Effectiveness of SCAR-Q for assessment of incisional SCAR after implant-based reconstruction in breast cancer patients: Can it be a tool for incision selection?

Incisional scarring is a factor of cosmetic appearance evaluated after breast reconstruction, along with the shape, position, and size of the breast. This study aimed to examine the effect of the incision scar location on patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Using the Japanese version of the SCAR-Q, we assessed the scar appearance, symptoms and psychosocial effects. Plastic surgeons performed assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale. The patients were divided into two groups: those with scars on the margins of the breast (MB group) and those with scars in the breast area (IB group). The results revealed that patients in the MB group reported significantly higher satisfaction with the scar appearance and psychological impact than those in the IB group. However, assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of scar satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Patients tend to prefer and have higher satisfaction with scars along the breast margin, which offers valuable insights into surgical decisions. Further studies with larger and more diverse sample sizes are required for validation.

Efficacy of Versajet hydrosurgery system in chronic wounds: A systematic review.

Studies demonstrating the effectiveness of hydrosurgery for chronic wounds are extremely limited. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hydrosurgery compared with conventional debridement in chronic wounds, skin ulcers, and non-acute wounds. This PROSPERO-registered review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers. The bias of prospective randomised controlled studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias and RevMan 5.4 software, whereas the bias of retrospective comparative studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomised Studies. Two prospective randomised controlled trials, two retrospective comparative studies, and three prospective non-comparative studies were included. Hydrosurgery enabled rapid debridement. The Versajet Hydrosurgery System saved 8.87 minutes compared with the conventional methods. Similarly, the debridement quality was high with this system. The debridement number needed to achieve adequate wound beds was fewer in the hydrosurgery group than in the conventional group. These superiorities lead to subsequent success and cost-effectiveness. As there were only two prospective randomised controlled studies, and much information was missing, the risk of bias was unclear. This review confirmed that hydrosurgery is useful for the debridement of chronic wounds, considering the procedural speed and quality.

Burn center function during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international multi-center report of strategy and experience.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CO V2 responsible for COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly escalating across the globe. Burn centers gearing for the pandemic must strike a balance between contributing to the pandemic response and preserving ongoing burn care in a safe and ethical fashion. The authors of the present communication represent seven burn centers from China, Singapore, Japan, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Each center is located at a different point along the pandemic curve and serves different patient populations within their healthcare systems. We review our experience with the virus to date, our strategic approach to burn center function under these circumstances, and lessons learned. The purpose of this communication is to share experiences that will assist with continued preparations to help burn centers advocate for optimum burn care and overcome challenges as this pandemic continues.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars-Japan Scar Workshop Consensus Document 2018.

There has been a long-standing need for guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars that are based on an understanding of the pathomechanisms that underlie these skin fibrotic diseases. This is particularly true for clinicians who deal with Asian and African patients because these ethnicities are highly prone to these diseases. By contrast, Caucasians are less likely to develop keloids and hypertrophic scars, and if they do, the scars tend not to be severe. This ethnic disparity also means that countries vary in terms of their differential diagnostic algorithms. The lack of clear treatment guidelines also means that primary care physicians are currently applying a hotchpotch of treatments, with uneven outcomes. To overcome these issues, the Japan Scar Workshop (JSW) has created a tool that allows clinicians to objectively diagnose and distinguish between keloids, hypertrophic scars, and mature scars. This tool is called the JSW Scar Scale (JSS) and it involves scoring the risk factors of the individual patients and the affected areas. The tool is simple and easy to use. As a result, even physicians who are not accustomed to keloids and hypertrophic scars can easily diagnose them and judge their severity. The JSW has also established a committee that, in cooperation with outside experts in various fields, has prepared a Consensus Document on keloid and hypertrophic scar treatment guidelines. These guidelines are simple and will allow even inexperienced clinicians to choose the most appropriate treatment strategy. The Consensus Document is provided in this article. It describes (1) the diagnostic algorithm for pathological scars and how to differentiate them from clinically similar benign and malignant tumors, (2) the general treatment algorithms for keloids and hypertrophic scars at different medical facilities, (3) the rationale behind each treatment for keloids and hypertrophic scars, and (4) the body site-specific treatment protocols for these scars. We believe that this Consensus Document will be helpful for physicians from all over the world who treat keloids and hypertrophic scars.