The Most Current Algorithms for the Treatment and Prevention of Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A 2020 Update of the Algorithms Published 10 Years Ago.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, this Journal published my comprehensive review of the literature on hypertrophic scars and keloids. In that article, I presented evidence-based algorithms for the prevention and treatment of these refractory pathologic scars. In the ensuing decade, substantial progress has been made in the field, including many new randomized controlled trials. To reflect this, I have updated my review. METHODS: All studies were evaluated for methodologic quality. Baseline characteristics of patients were extracted along with the interventions and their outcomes. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and comprehensive reviews were included if available. RESULTS: Risk factors that promote hypertrophic scar and keloid growth include local factors (tension on the wound/scar), systemic factors (e.g., hypertension), genetic factors (e.g., single-nucleotide polymorphisms), and lifestyle factors. Treatment of hypertrophic scars depends on scar contracture severity: if severe, surgery is the first choice. If not, conservative therapies are indicated. Keloid treatment depends on whether they are small and single or large and multiple. Small and single keloids can be treated radically by surgery with adjuvant therapy (e.g., radiotherapy) or multimodal conservative therapy. For large and multiple keloids, volume- and number-reducing surgery is a choice. Regardless of the treatment(s), patients should be followed up over the long term. Conservative therapies, including gel sheets, tape fixation, topical and injected external agents, oral agents, and makeup therapy, should be administered on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled trials on pathologic scar management have increased markedly over the past decade. Although these studies suffer from various limitations, they have greatly improved hypertrophic scar and keloid management. Future high-quality trials are likely to improve the current hypertrophic scar and keloid treatment algorithms further.

The impact of completion thyroidectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The oncological benefit of completion thyroidectomy (CT) following thyroid lobectomy (TL) is presumed to be similar to that of upfront total thyroidectomy(TT), from a patient's perspective the risk and inconvenience of further surgery adds significantly to the impact of the overall treatment. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of CT in terms of the duration of admission and associated complications. METHODS: A study of consecutive patients with DTC identified from prospective MDT records of South-East Scotland from 2009 to 2015. Surgical data was extracted from electronic medical record. RESULTS: Of 361 patients diagnosed with DTC, 161 (45%) had CT. The median postoperative stay was 1 day (range 1-5days). In total 22 patients (14%)suffered complications. Four patients (3%) developed postoperative haematoma. Two (1%) had an identified permanent nerve palsy on the completion side. 13 patients (8%) remained on calcium supplementation for more than 6 months postoperatively and three patients (2%) developed wound complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that CT is regularly performed (45%). Recent changes in international guidelines recognize increasing number of patients as eligible for a conservative approach but recommend CT based on whether upfront TT would have been recommended if the TL pathology were known from the outset. Such an approach fails to consider the additional risk and inconvenience of CT on the overall patient experience. Due to a relatively high rate of complications, only those patients who are most likely to benefit from further surgery to facilitate adjuvant radioactive iodine should be offered additional surgery.