The psychological impact of split-thickness skin grafts.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the psychological distress associated with a split-thickness skin graft (STSG). METHOD: A retrospective postal questionnaire survey of 102 patients who had undergone a STSG procedure within the last 3.5 years. Outcomes measures included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS-59) and subjective rating scales (SRS) of noticeability and worry about the grafted and donor area. RESUTLS: Scores on the SRS correlated positively with HADS and DAS-59 scores. Rates of anxiety were higher than depression (19% vs 13%, respectively). Greater than 10% of the sample experienced significant appearance-related distress when compared to standardised test norms. Concerns about the grafted area were higher than for the donor site, but those concerned about the graft were also likely to be concerned about the donor area. Aged (< 60 years) and reason for surgery (trauma as opposed to cancer) were associated with significantly higher scores on appearance measures. CONCLUSION: STSG is not associated with high levels of psychological distress, However, there is a small but significant monitory who experience appearance-related distress, low mood and anxiety who would benefit from targeted psychological intervention, Demographic factors, such as age or gender, and length of time since surgery, are not useful discriminators in identifying vulnerable individuals. Simple SRS of visibility and worry correlate significantly with standardised psychological measures. These can be used as a short and effective screening tool to identify individuals who would benefit from postoperative psychological input. DECLARATION OF INTERNET: There were no external sources sources of funding for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Low priority? A cross sectional study of appearance anxiety in 500 consecutive referrals for cosmetic surgery.

Low priority treatment guidance is used in the National Health Service to manage requests for cosmetic surgery where there is no associated functional impairment. Provision is made in this guidance to provide surgery on exceptional grounds, and this may include significant psychological distress. However, without a good understanding of the common factors that underpin requests for surgery, ideally in the local population, it is very difficult to define an exception in a clear and consistent way. A prospective study of consecutive referrals for cosmetic surgery in an NHS plastic surgery unit was therefore completed over a five-year period. Five hundred and one men and women aged between 16 and 79 (mean 34.5 years) were assessed using standardised questionnaires and clinical interview carried out by two clinical psychologists specialising in the field. Results indicated very marked impact of appearance-related anxiety with significant withdrawal from social activities particularly intimate behaviour. Coping behaviours ranged from use of concealing clothing and complete social avoidance to ominous high risk strategies such as repeated pregnancy with late termination to maintain breast size. Treatment goals were predominantly psychosocial. High levels of psychological morbidity can be characterised as typical of people requesting cosmetic procedures in the NHS rather than exceptional, making the achievement of equitable access to limited resources impossible. Rather than define this population as 'low-priority', a constructive approach is to examine the utility of psychological interventions in a design which evaluates the comparative benefits of surgical and psychological approaches to management of appearance anxiety.