Clinical Improvement and Safety of Ablative Fractional Laser Therapy for Post-Surgical Scars: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Ablative fractional laser (AFL) therapy for scars is an area of increasing interest. While the enthusiasm for these treatments is high, a systematic review of their use on surgical scars has not been done. OBJECTIVE: To identify randomized trials that study the efficacy of ablative fractionated laser therapy for treatment of surgical scars. METHODS AND MATERIALS: EMBASE, Web of Science, and Pubmed databases were searched for randomized trials with 10 or more surgical wounds. No restrictions were placed on the language of the publications. RESULTS: Three randomized trials were identified that met the criteria for the review. One study found superior efficacy of ablative fractionated laser treatment of surgical scars compared to pulsed dye laser while the others found equivalent efficacy when compared to dermabrasion or pulsed dye laser. One study found a superior safety profile for ablative fractionated laser treatment over dermabrasion. No studies compared fractionated laser therapy to sham therapy or observation. CONCLUSIONS: AFL compares well with the scar amelioration techniques of dermabrasion and pulsed dye laser. Additional studies are needed to further contrast AFL to these and other modalities as well as to observation alone.

Effect of Adhesive Strips and Dermal Sutures vs Dermal Sutures Only on Wound Closure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although applying adhesive strips to a wound closure has been shown to have outcomes equivalent to those with cuticular suturing, it is unknown whether adhesive strips provide additional benefit compared with dermal suturing alone. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of adhesive strips to a wound closed with buried interrupted subcuticular sutures improves outcomes following wound closure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, randomized split-wound intervention was conducted between November 14, 2013, and May 16, 2014, in patients who underwent cutaneous surgical procedures at the University of California, Davis, outpatient dermatology clinic. Fifty-seven patients 18 years or older with postoperative defects of at least 3 cm, resulting from either Mohs micrographic surgical procedures or surgical excision, were screened for participation. Nine patients were excluded and 48 were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Half of each wound was randomized to receive buried interrupted subcuticular sutures and overlying adhesive strips and the other half received buried interrupted subcuticular sutures only. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: At 3 months' follow-up, each patient and 2 blinded observers evaluated the wound using the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale. RESULTS: The total mean (SD) Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale score for observers for the side that received a combination of adhesive strips and buried interrupted subcuticular suturing (12.3 [4.8]) and the side that received sutures only (12.9 [6.3]) did not differ significantly at 3 months (P = .32). There was no significant difference in the total patient assessment scale score between the combination closure (14.0 [7.6]) and sutures only (14.7 [7.6]) sides at 3 months (P = .39). There was also no significant difference between the 2 closure methods in terms of mean (SD) scar width (both methods: 1.1 [0.8] mm, P = .89) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combination closure with adhesive strips and buried interrupted subcuticular suturing was not significantly associated with improved overall scar assessment compared with buried interrupted subcuticular suturing alone when evaluated by blinded observers or the patients themselves. Our results do not support the use of adhesive strips as a means to improve cosmetic outcomes or reduce scar width. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01979497.

Purse-string suture vs second intention healing: results of a randomized, blind clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Purse-string suture is a closure method that purportedly reduces the scar area compared with second intention healing. Randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 methods appear to be limited or absent. OBJECTIVE: To determine if purse-string suture improves cosmetic outcome, healing time, and scar to defect area compared with second intention healing for circular defects on the trunk and extremities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, 2-arm, randomized, evaluator-blinded clinical trial in a single-center outpatient academic dermatology center. Patients were eligible if they were older than 18 years, able to give informed consent, and had circular or oval postoperative defects larger than 8 mm on the trunk or extremities. INTERVENTIONS: For the purse-string treatment arm, wounds were sewn in circumferential fashion using polydiaxanone suture. Patients in the other treatment arm were allowed to heal by second intent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were the mean total Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) scores ascertained from the patient and 2 blinded observers. Secondary outcomes included the ratio of scar to initial defect size, healing time, pain scores, and complication rates. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were screened, and a total of 44 patients with 50 surgical sites were enrolled. Forty-two patients with 48 surgical sites completed the study. The mean total observer POSAS score was 18.38 for the purse-string group vs 19.91 for the secondary intention group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .41). Similarly, there were no significant differences for any of the following secondary outcome measures: mean total patient POSAS score (P = .96), mean scar-to-defect area (P = .61), and mean pain level at week 1 (P = .19). Statistical trends toward significance were seen in the mean healing time in favor of purse-string suture (P = .10) and scar relief, which favored second intention healing (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The purse-string suture results in similar cosmetic outcomes, scar sizes, and pain levels compared with second intention healing for circular or oval wounds on the trunk and extremities. A larger study might better define the potential differences in our secondary outcome measures of healing time and scar relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02062866.

Comparison of treatment of melomental fold rhytides with cross-linked hyaluronic acid combined with onabotulinumtoxina and cross-linked hyaluronic acid alone.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid and onabotulinumtoxinA combination therapy has been shown to have greater clinical effectiveness than hyaluronic acid alone for glabellar furrowing, but this is not well documented for melomental fold rhytides. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intradermal cross-linked hyaluronic acid (HA) and onabotulinumtoxinA combination therapy with the efficacy of cross-linked HA monotherapy in patients with melomental fold rhytides. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two patients received combination therapy to a melomental fold area while also receiving cross-linked HA and a placebo saline injection to the contralateral side. Blinded physician evaluators and patient self-evaluators clinically and photographically assessed responses during standard intervals over 12 months. RESULTS: The melomental folds treated with combination therapy had significantly greater aesthetic improvement than the monotherapy-treated side at 2 weeks and 1 month upon physician photographic review. Furthermore, the median time for return to pretreatment rhytides was 6.5 weeks longer in the combination therapy side. Patient assessment also revealed improvement over baseline for the combination therapy at 1 month. CONCLUSION: Cross-linked HA and onabotulinumtoxinA combination therapy to melomental fold rhytides may provide better overall aesthetic results and longer duration of aesthetic improvement than cross-linked HA monotherapy.