A Cross-Sectional Study on Factors Affecting the Decision to Conduct Dermatologic Surgery Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has greatly affected medical practices worldwide. Due to the transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the risks and benefits of conducting non-emergent and aesthetic procedures have shifted. This study primarily aimed to investigate the different factors affecting the physician's decision to conduct dermatologic surgery procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic based on their own vaccination status. Secondly, this study also aimed to determine the level of institutional trust in the respondents' respective governments and ministries of health. METHODS: This was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study conducted from October to December 2021. The survey was electronically distributed to members of the Cyber Conference of Aesthetic Dermatology and Skin Surgery in APAC (CyAsia) and members of dermatological societies across nine countries in Asia. The survey asks the participants' tendencies to perform procedures based on patient willingness to undergo nasal swabbing prior to the procedure, the type of procedure to be performed (cancer removal vs. filler augmentation), and the type of vaccine received by the physician (inactivated, viral vector, mRNA or protein-based). RESULTS: A total of 351 participants completed the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using a conditional logistic regression model according to the participants' country of origin, specialty, age, level of trust in the national government, and level of trust in their respective health ministries. Tendencies to conduct dermatologic procedures were highest for doctors who received mRNA vaccines and lowest among doctors who received inactivated vaccines. Willingness of the patients to undergo pre-procedure nasal swabbing was also a significant factor in deciding to treat, whereas the type of procedure performed was a non-significant factor. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the important factors that influence the decision to conduct dermatologic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Efficacy and safety of thermomechanical fractional injury-assisted corticosteroid delivery versus intralesional corticosteroid injection for the treatment of hypertrophic scars: A randomized split-scar trial.

BACKGROUND: Disruption of the natural skin barrier in a controlled manner may be used to deliver drugs that enhance scar resolution. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of thermomechanical fractional injury (TMFI)-assisted topical corticosteroid delivery with corticosteroid injection in the treatment of hypertrophic scar (HTS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, split-scar, double-blinded study. Twenty-one subjects with HTS on the abdomen received five split-scar treatments of TMFI + Steroid and steroid injection alone. Changes in scar thickness, scar volume, and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) were analyzed. Patient self-assessment, VAS scores, and adverse effects were also evaluated. RESULTS: Scar thickness, volume, and VSS scores of both segments improved significantly compared to baseline. On every follow-up visit, there were no significant differences in mean scar thickness reduction between the two treatment groups except at the 6-month follow-up where the mean scar thickness reduction of the steroid injection segment was significantly lower than that of the TMFI + Steroid segment (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.35; p = 0.002). Scar volume, VSS scores, and patient self-assessment also showed no significant differences between both segments on all visits. The steroid injection segment was significantly more painful than the TMFI + Steroid segment (95% CI, -2.16 to -1.29; p < 0.001). Adverse effects of skin atrophy, telangiectasia, and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation were noted in the steroid injection segment, while no adverse effects were observed at the TMFI + Steroid segment. CONCLUSIONS: TMFI-assisted topical corticosteroid delivery is an effective treatment for HTS with a lower risk of adverse effects compared with corticosteroid injection.

Determination of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in patients with alopecia areata and their comparison with levels in healthy controls: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Alopecia areata (AA) has been postulated to be an autoimmune disease affecting the hair follicles. Because vitamin D receptors are present in the immune system and hair follicles, vitamin D has been hypothesized to affect the disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and the percentage of vitamin D deficiency in AA patients and compare them with those in healthy controls in a Philippine tertiary hospital. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 29 AA patients and 29 healthy controls. The serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were determined using the chemiluminescent immunoassay method. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean vitamin D levels between AA patients (24.41 ± 6.87 ng/mL) and healthy controls (24.68 ± 6.68 ng/mL) (P = .88). The percentage of patients with vitamin D deficiency, defined as <20 ng/mL, trended to higher among AA patients (34.4%) than among healthy controls (17.2%), with an odds ratio of 2.53 (95% CI 0.73-8.65), though this was not statsitically significant. LIMITATIONS: This study involved a limited number of patients in an urbanized area in the Philippines, and majority of the AA cases seen had mild AA. CONCLUSION: The trend toward the increased percentage of vitamin D-deficient individuals among AA patients seen in this study may provide insight into the association of vitamin D with AA.