1.Erratum: Scar Revision Surgery: The Patient's Perspective.
Benjamin H MIRANDA ; Anna Y ALLAN ; Daniel P BUTLER ; Paul D CUSSONS
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2016;43(1):128-129
This erratum is being published to correct the printing errors on page 730, 732, and 733.
2.Scar Revision Surgery: The Patient's Perspective.
Benjamin H MIRANDA ; Anna Y ALLAN ; Daniel P BUTLER ; Paul D CUSSONS
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2015;42(6):729-734
BACKGROUND: Insufficient satisfaction outcome literature exists to assist consultations for scar revision surgery; such outcomes should reflect the patient's perspective. The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate scar revision patient satisfaction outcomes, according to specified patient-selection criteria. METHODS: Patients (250) were randomly selected for telephone contacting regarding scar revisions undertaken between 2007-2011. Visual analogue scores were obtained for scars pre- and post-revision surgery. Surgery selection criteria were; 'presence' of sufficient time for scar maturation prior to revision, technical issues during or wound complications from the initial procedure that contributed to poor scarring, and 'absence' of site-specific or patient factors that negatively influence outcomes. Patient demographics, scar pathogenesis (elective vs. trauma), underlying issue (functional/symptomatic vs. cosmetic) and revision surgery details were also collected with the added use of a real-time, hospital database. RESULTS: Telephone contacting was achieved for 211 patients (214 scar revisions). Satisfaction outcomes were '2% worse, 16% no change, and 82% better'; a distribution maintained between body sites and despite whether surgery was functional/symptomatic vs. cosmetic. Better outcomes were reported by patients who sustained traumatic scars vs. those who sustained scars by elective procedures (91.80% vs. 77.78%, P=0.016) and by females vs. males (85.52% vs. 75.36%, P<0.05), particularly in the elective group where males (36.17%) were more likely to report no change or worse outcomes versus females (16.04%) (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Successful scar revision outcomes may be achieved using careful patient selection. This study provides useful information for referring general practitioners, and patient-surgeon consultations, when planning scar revision.
Cicatrix*
;
Demography
;
Female
;
General Practitioners
;
Humans
;
Male
;
Patient Satisfaction
;
Patient Selection
;
Prospective Studies
;
Referral and Consultation
;
Surgery, Plastic
;
Telephone
;
Wounds and Injuries