Suh Joong Min, Park Seong Hoon, Lee Jun Won, Lee Seong Joo, Suh In Suck, Lee Jong Wook, Jeong Hii Sun
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Aug;45(4):1772-1782. doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02330-3. Epub 2021 May 10.
Even though scars are major issues for patients who undergo facial lacerations, programs for their prevention and early management are not well established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of prophylactic scar assessments and early scar interventions in patients with lacerations.
A total of 116 patients underwent suture line and scar prevention treatment in the emergency room from 2014 to 2015. In the retrospective study, 46 patients who met all the criteria were included in the study. They were assigned to one of the following two scar prevention programs: the standard scar program for prevention, which included taping, silicone sheets, and ointments, and the multimodality scar program for treatment, which included triamcinolone, botulinum toxins, or CO fractional lasers. The patterns of early scar program were investigated for the standard scar prevention program and the multimodality scar management program, and we evaluated the scar assessment scores of the patients at 3 and 6 months.
Scar scores for the patients who received multimodality scar management showed statistically significant improvements in Patient Scar Assessment (PSA) scales, Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scales (SBSES), Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores, and Visual Analog Scar (VAS) scales (the p values were 0.008, 0.007, 0.017, and 0.01, respectively).
The multimodality scar program is more effective for scar prevention than the standard scar program.
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
尽管瘢痕是面部裂伤患者面临的主要问题，但瘢痕预防和早期处理方案尚未完善。本研究旨在评估预防性瘢痕评估和早期瘢痕干预对裂伤患者的临床效果。
2014年至2015年，共有116例患者在急诊室接受了缝线及瘢痕预防治疗。在这项回顾性研究中，46例符合所有标准的患者被纳入研究。他们被分配到以下两种瘢痕预防方案之一：标准瘢痕预防方案，包括贴扎、硅胶片和药膏；多模式瘢痕治疗方案，包括曲安奈德、肉毒毒素或CO2点阵激光。对标准瘢痕预防方案和多模式瘢痕管理方案的早期瘢痕方案模式进行了研究，并在3个月和6个月时评估了患者的瘢痕评估分数。
接受多模式瘢痕管理的患者在患者瘢痕评估（PSA）量表、石溪瘢痕评估量表（SBSES）、温哥华瘢痕量表（VSS）评分和视觉模拟瘢痕（VAS）量表上的瘢痕分数有统计学显著改善（p值分别为0.008、0.007、0.017和0.01）。
多模式瘢痕方案在预防瘢痕方面比标准瘢痕方案更有效。
证据级别IV：本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据级别。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或作者在线指南www.springer.com/00266 。
