Current Practice in Keloid Treatment: a Survey of Dutch Dermatologists and Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Several therapeutic options are available for the treatment of keloids, but it remains unclear which treatment options are most commonly used by practitioners. OBJECTIVE: To explore the prevailing treatment for different keloid phenotypes among dermatologists and plastic surgeons in the Netherlands. METHODS: Members of the Dutch society for Plastic surgery and the Dutch society for Dermatology and Venereology were asked to participate. Questions elaborated on the treatment for a small and a large keloid on the mandibula and multiple keloids on the chest. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three responses were obtained. Heterogeneity in treatment was extremely high for the small, large, and multiple keloids with 27, 35, and 33 various first choices, respectively. Intralesional corticosteroids were most often chosen for all 3 different keloid phenotypes. These were mostly (61%) administered as monotherapy for the small keloid and mostly combined with other treatments for the large keloid (19%) and multiple keloids (43%). Surgery was chosen regularly (22%) for the large keloid, mostly combined with intralesional corticosteroids (10%) or brachytherapy (8.4%). CONCLUSION: Keloid treatment is very heterogeneous among dermatologists and plastic surgeons, even in a relatively small country as the Netherlands. Moreover, the treatment choice depends on the keloid phenotype.

Evaluating International Diagnostic, Screening, and Monitoring Practices for Craniofacial Microsomia and Microtia: A Survey Study.

To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with the European Reference Network "European Guideline Craniofacial Microsomia" recommendations on screening and monitoring.This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The survey consisted of 44 questions on demographics, diagnostics and classification, obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, speech and language development, hearing, ocular abnormalities, visual development, orthodontic screening, genetic counselling, psychological wellbeing, and extracraniofacial anomalies.Respondents were participants of 3 international cleft and craniofacial conferences, members of the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association and members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction. Respondents were requested to complete 1 questionnaire per multidisciplinary team.Fifty-seven responses were received from 30 countries (response rate ∼3%).The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement diagnostic criteria were used by 86% of respondents, though 65% considered isolated microtia a mild form of CFM. The Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Facial Nerve and Soft Tissue classification system was used by 74% of respondents. Agreement with standardized screening and monitoring recommendations was between 61% and 97%. A majority of respondents agreed with screening for extracraniofacial anomalies (63%-68%) and with genetic counselling (81%).This survey did not reveal consistent agreement on the diagnostic criteria for CFM. Respondents mostly supported management recommendations, but frequently disagreed with the standardization of care. Future studies could focus on working towards international consensus on diagnostic criteria, and exploring internationally feasible management strategies.