Background: Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction leads to large scars in the breast and abdominal region. Common symptoms related to abdominal scarring include changes in color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity of the skin. The aim of this study was to examine whether microneedling improves the abdominal scar quality after DIEP-flap breast reconstruction. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled within subject comparison design (N = 30) was used to study the effect of microneedling treatments on the abdominal scar, versus no treatment. Three electrically powered microneedling sessions were performed every 4 weeks on one side of the abdominal scar. Abdominal scar assessment was performed at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Treated and untreated sides were compared using a t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test in case the data were not normally distributed. Results: Twenty-seven women completed the study. Microneedling treatment led to lower POSAS scores compared with the untreated scar side after the 3- and 9-month follow-up. At the 9-month follow-up, the POSAS total score (Mdn = 17, interquartile range = 18.3 versus Mdn = 21.4, interquartile range = 17.5) was statistically lower for the treated side compared with the untreated side, implying a better-appraised scar quality. The observer POSAS total score was statistically lower for the treated side compared with the untreated side. Conclusions: Based on patient and observer ratings, overall abdominal scars after DIEP-flap surgery improve significantly after microneedling treatment. Scar symptoms reduce faster under the influence of microneedling treatment compared with no treatment.
LINK
Background: Acne vulgaris is a multifaceted skin disorder, affecting more than 85% of young individuals worldwide. Pharmacological therapy is not always desirable because of the development of antibiotic resistance or the potential risk of adverse effects. Non‐pharmacological therapies can be viable alternatives for conventional therapies. However, sufficient evidence‐based support in the efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological therapies is lacking. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of several non‐pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Methods: A systematic literature review, including a best‐evidence synthesis, was performed to identify literature. Three electronic databases were accessed and searched for studies published between January 2000 and May 2017. Results: Thirty‐three eligible studies were included in our systematic review. Three main types of non‐pharmacological therapies were identified laser‐ and light‐based therapies, chemical peels and fractional microneedling radiofrequency. The majority of the included studies demonstrated a significant reduction in acne lesions. However, only seven studies had a high methodologic quality. Based on these seven trials, a best‐evidence synthesis was conducted. Strong evidence was found for glycolic acid (10–40%). Moderate evidence was found for amino fruit acid (20–60%), intense pulsed light (400–700 and 870–1200 nm) and the diode laser (1450 nm). Initially, conflicting evidence was found for pulsed dye laser (585–595 nm). The most frequently reported side‐effects for non‐pharmacological therapies included erythema, tolerable pain, purpura, oedema and a few cases of hyperpigmentation, which were in most cases mild and transient. Conclusion: Circumstantial evidence was found for non‐pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, the lack of high methodological quality among included studies prevented us to draw clear conclusions, regarding a stepwise approach. Nevertheless, our systematic review including a best‐evidence synthesis did create order and structure in resulting outcomes in which a first step towards future research is generated.
Breast cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer that affects women worldwide, posing a significant burden on public health. While advancements in early detection and improved treatments have led to a remarkable 90% five-year survival rate and an 83% ten-year survival rate, this has also resulted in more prophylactic mastectomies being performed. Despite advancements in breast-conserving techniques, immunotherapy, and hormone therapy, many women still undergo mastectomies as part of their cancer treatment. In all cases, this results in scarring, and additional side effects from treatment modalities may arise. The loss of a breast can profoundly impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although HRQoL has improved greatly during the recent years, systematic and local therapy having side effects is not uncommon, and this needs more attention.
