Importance

The process of Z-plasty scar revision breaks up a linear scar into multiple parts with the purpose of camouflage and improvement of the cosmetic appearance of surgical scars. Although this postulation guides the practices of many reconstructive surgeons, few studies support improved aesthetic outcomes.

Objective

To compare the perceived cosmetic appearance of linear scars vs zigzag scars by the general public.

Design, setting, and participants

A computer-generated image of a mature scar was designed in linear and zigzag configurations and overlaid on the faces of standardized headshots of 4 white individuals. Twelve sets of images of linear vs zigzag scars were arranged in side-by-side comparisons in an Internet-based national survey. Respondents rated each scar on the 10-point Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, where a lower score indicated likeness with normal skin and a higher score, the worst scar imaginable. Data were collected from May 1 through June 30, 2013, and analyzed from July 31 to September 1, 2013.

Main outcomes and measures

Aesthetic rating of scars by the survey respondents.

Results

Eight hundred seventy-six participants responded to the survey (24.5% response rate); of these, 810 completed the survey (379 men [46.1%] and 443 women [53.9%]; 148 [18.0%] were 18 to 29 years, 171 [20.8%] were 30 to 44 years, 290 [35.3%] were 45 to 60 years, and 213 [25.9%] were older than 60 years). Significantly lower scores and better perceived cosmetic outcomes were found for linear scars compared with zigzag scars in every assessed group of images on the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (mean [SD] scores, 2.9 [1.6] vs 4.5 [2.2], respectively; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

The lay public has a significantly better perception of the appearance of linear scars compared with zigzag scars in 3 facial locations (temple, cheek, and forehead) of white patients in various age groups.

Level of evidence

NA.

Background: The set-back suture, an absorbable dermal suturing technique, purportedly improves wound eversion and cosmetic outcomes. Objective: We sought to conduct a split-wound, prospective, randomized study to compare the cosmetic outcome and wound eversion achieved with the set-back suture and the buried vertical mattress suture (BVMS). Methods: A total of 46 surgical elliptical wounds were randomized to subcuticular closure with the set-back suture on half and the BVMS on the other. Maximum eversion height and width were measured immediately postoperatively. At 3 months, 2 blinded observers evaluated each scar using a 7-point Likert physician global scar assessment scale. Subjects and observers also completed the validated Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, where a score of 6 represents normal-appearing skin and 60 represents worst imaginable scar. Results: In all, 42 subjects completed the study. The set-back suture provided statistically significant wound eversion. On the Likert scale, observers rated the set-back suture side 1 point better than the BVMS side. Both patient and observer total Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores were significantly lower for the set-back suture side (subject mean 13.0 ± 8.7 vs 16.2 ± 12.0 [P = .039]; observer mean 24.5 ± 10.4 vs 27.7 ± 13.6 [P = .028], respectively). Limitations: Single institution experience and relatively short follow-up are limitations. Conclusion: The set-back suture provides superior wound eversion and better cosmetic outcomes than the BVMS. © 2014 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.

Importance:Psoriasis is a complex inflammatory skin condition associated with serious medical comorbidities in adults, including obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, psoriatic arthritis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, depression, anxiety, and decreased quality of life. Because psoriasis begins in childhood in almost one-third of patients, early identification of risk may be critical to minimizing effects on future health. Objective:To develop the first set of guidelines for comorbidity screening for patients with pediatric psoriasis based on current evidence. Evidence Review:A literature review was performed using PubMed from January 1999 through December 2015. Limiting the search to human studies published in English and removing reviews and editorials produced 153 relevant manuscripts. An expert panel in psoriasis, pediatric dermatology, pediatric rheumatology, pediatric gastroenterology, pediatric endocrinology, and adult and pediatric cardiology used the patient-centered Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) method to evaluate and grade the quality of evidence. Findings:Because of the limited number of pediatric studies published on these topics, the strength of the panel's recommendations is classified as SORT level C expert consensus recommendations. The majority of recommendations coincide with those endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics for the general pediatric patient but with added attention to signs and symptoms of arthritis, depression, and anxiety. The panel also identified key areas for further investigation. Conclusions and Relevance:Patients with pediatric psoriasis should receive routine screening and identification of risk factors for associated comorbidities. These guidelines are relevant for all health care providers caring for patients with pediatric psoriasis, including primary care clinicians, dermatologists, and pediatric specialists. Because these are the first pediatric guidelines, re-review and refinement will be necessary as studies further detail, and possibly stratify, risk in affected children.