Ultrasound-guided bladder localization for predicting abdominal adhesions, bladder injury, and scar healing in repeat cesarean sections: a prospective cohort study.

Pressure-garment therapy for preventing hypertrophic scarring a er burn injury (Protocol)

Wide local excision of the primary tumour is the mainstay of treatment for melanoma patients. The aims of this study were to assess the patient- and observer-reported long-term scar quality after surgery using the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) in melanoma patients, to assess the reliability and validity of POSAS, and to identify factors influencing the scar assessment. This cross-sectional clinical study included 320 melanoma patients with primary tumours on the trunk and limbs. Data regarding patients, treatment, scar characteristics and functional outcomes was analysed. Internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and convergent validity were examined. Factors influencing the patient- and observer-reported scar quality were tested using regression analyses. Results of the POSAS showed an overall good scar quality. The internal consistency of POSAS was good, and the convergent validity was strong. The inter-rater reliability was only moderate. The patients were influenced by the POSAS sub-items: colour, irregularity, thickness and pain. The observer was influenced by the POSAS sub-items: vascularity, surface area, thickness, relief and pliability. Both patient- and observer-reported scar qualities were influenced by age, location, type of superficial suture, keloids and widened scars. Moreover, the patients were influenced by the scar tightness while the observer was influenced by postoperative complications, hypertrophic scars, suture marks and dog ears. In conclusion POSAS is a reliable and valid scar assessment tool. The factors influencing patient- and observer-reported scar quality differed, and better understanding of this may improve treatment and hence patient-reported scar quality.

Trocar port scar quality in morbidly obese patients after bariatric surgery

The minimal important change (MIC) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) 2.0

Scar formation is an important adverse consequence of burns. How patients appraise their scar quality is often studied shortly after sustaining the injury, but information in the long‐term is scarce. Our aim was, therefore, to evaluate long‐term patient‐reported quality of burn scars. Adults with a burn center admission of ≥1 day between August 2011 and September 2012 were invited to complete a questionnaire on long‐term consequences of burns. We enriched this sample with patients with severe burns (>20% total body surface area [TBSA] burned or TBSA full thickness >5%) treated between January 2010 and March 2013. Self‐reported scar quality was assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Patients completed this scale for their—in their opinion—most severe scar ≥5 years after burns. This study included 251 patients with a mean %TBSA burned of 10%. The vast majority (91.4%) reported at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and 78.9% of the patients’ overall opinion was that their scar deviated from normal skin. Patients with severe burns had higher POSAS scores, representing worse scar quality, than patients with mild/intermediate burns, except for color, which was high in both groups. A longer hospital stay predicted reduced scar quality (both mean POSAS and mean overall opinion of the scar) in multivariate analyses. In addition, female gender was also associated with a poorer overall opinion of the scar. In conclusion, this study provides new insights in long‐term scar quality. Scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the burn population more than 5 years after burns, especially in those with severe burns. Female gender is associated with a poorer patients’ overall opinion of their scar, which may be an indication of gender differences in perception of scar quality after burns.

Scars are inevitable after effect of wound healing, a natural process that restores tissue integrity following injury, burns or surgery. They can be aesthetically displeasing and functionally impairing, depending on their location, size, and depth. Depending on the severity of the injury, scars can be hypertrophic, atrophic, or keloid. These variations can lead to pain, itching, contractures (limited movement), and psychological distress, impacting a patient's quality of life. Objective was to evaluate the efficacy of autologous fat grafting in improving the appearance and quality of scars, with a focus on patients presenting with facial scars due to burns, trauma, surgery or acne at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. In this quasi-experimental study, 30 patients of age 18 years to 60 years, irrespective of gender having facial scar because of burn, trauma, surgery or acne were included in the study. A comprehensive scar assessment was performed using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) before treatment, and follow-up evaluations were conducted on the seventh day, at three months, and at six months post-fat grafting. Fat grafting was executed using a tumescent technique based on Klein's formula, with the aspirated fat injected into the subdermal plane of the scar. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 23. The patient cohort had a mean age of 26.77 years, with a predominance of female participants (73.3%). Trauma was the most common cause of scars (50%), with the forehead being the most frequent location (36.67%). Significant improvements in scar quality were observed, with both patient and observer POSAS scores showing notable reductions from baseline to 6 months (p<0.05). All patients (100%) demonstrated an improvement in scar appearance. Fat grafting presents a promising treatment for improving the appearance and quality of facial scars.

The paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) is a longstanding, versatile technique used in nasal reconstruction offering robust vascularity and excellent aesthetic outcomes. While the donor site is usually closed primarily, tension can make this challenging and may create widened scarring or dehiscence. A retrospective review of 108 patients undergoing PMFF following an excision of a basal or squamous cell carcinoma between January 2015 and December 2023 by a single surgeon was performed. Size of defect, location, postoperative complications, scar quality, and analysis using the validated Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were used to assess patient satisfaction with their donor site scar. The PMFF donor site was closed primarily in 50.9% of patients, with a skin graft in 16.7% and with a hemicoronal flap in 32.4%. Primary closure exhibited higher complication rates (wound dehiscence, alopecia) in medium defects (2-4cm) and worse cosmesis (POSAS 40) compared with small defects <2cm (POSAS 15). Skin grafting showed the worst cosmesis (POSAS 42) despite no complications. The hemicoronal flap group demonstrated the best cosmesis (POSAS 9 for medium defects and 14 for large (>4cm) defects) and no complications, suggesting superior scar quality and minimal tension. The hemicoronal flap shows promise in decreasing wound tension and improving the scar quality in PMFF. This helps decrease complications associated with high wound tension as well as increase patient satisfaction in their scar.

Thyroid surgery is a common procedure for managing benign and malignant conditions. While the primary focus is on treating the underlying pathology, visible neck scars can significantly impact patients' self-esteem and quality of life (QoL). A comprehensive assessment of scar cosmesis alongside functional outcomes is essential. Despite the availability of tools such as the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), studies combining subjective and objective scar assessments with thyroid-specific and general QoL measures remain limited. This retrospective study evaluated scar cosmesis and QoL in 100 thyroidectomy patients treated between January 2021 and December 2023. Subjective satisfaction was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and objective assessments were performed using VSS and POSAS. QoL was assessed using validated instruments, ThyPRO and SF-36, to capture thyroid-specific and general QoL domains. Statistical analyses included t-tests, Pearson correlation, and multivariate regression. The mean VAS score was 7.8, with 85% of patients reporting satisfaction with their scars. Objective evaluations yielded mean VSS and POSAS scores of 5.2 and 6.8, respectively. Younger patients (VAS = 8.2 for ≤ 50years) and females (VAS = 8.0) reported higher satisfaction with scar outcomes. QoL improved significantly, with physical functioning increasing from 65.3 to 76.8 (p < 0.01) and emotional well-being from 61.2 to 70.1 (p < 0.05). Significant correlations were observed between scar cosmesis scores and QoL domains, such as physical functioning (r = 0.42). Sensory changes, including numbness around the scar area, were reported in 12% of patients. Integrating subjective and objective measures, including ThyPRO and SF-36, provides a complete evaluation of scar cosmesis and QoL outcomes after thyroidectomy. Key predictors of higher satisfaction included younger age, female gender, and superior scar quality. These findings highlight the importance of addressing both aesthetic and functional outcomes in thyroid surgery to enhance patient satisfaction and QoL. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-025-05368-w.

BackgroundThe morbidity of the donor site in split-thickness skin graft (STSG) may include abnormal pigmentation, delayed healing, and unfavorable scarring. Studies are usually focused on improving the healing of the recipient site, so donor site management becomes a secondary consideration. An optimal solution should be sought for donor site management to improve healing and minimize morbidity.MethodsIn this study, we used minced residual skin grafts over half of the donor site (cases) and compared the healing duration and scar quality with the other half (control). Healing duration was measured in days and the scar quality was assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at 90 days, 180 days, and 360 days.ResultsThe healing time was reduced with the application of minced residual skin grafts on the donor site. The scar quality was significantly better in the case group as compared to the control group at 90 days, 180 days, and 360 days (p<0.05).ConclusionMincing residual skin grafts and replacing them back to the donor site reduces the healing time and improves the quality of the scar.

The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) v2.0 is a widely used instrument to evaluate postsurgical scars. Its two subscales respectively investigate the patient's and clinician's opinion on the scar quality. However, psychometric studies of the POSAS have indicated that its metric performance is suboptimal, and structural adjustments may be appropriate. The authors aimed to verify through Rasch analysis the measurement properties of the POSAS v2.0, and propose eventual structural refinements for an easier and more confident use of the scale in clinical practice and research. Consecutive patients admitted to two rehabilitation centers for postsurgery rehabilitation over a 2-year period underwent scar assessments with the POSAS v2.0. We performed Rasch analysis to examine the scale's dimensionality, rating categories, item fit, reliability indices, local item independence, and differential item functioning. The study population consisted of 115 patients. The 10 response options of the POSAS showed malfunctioning, and thus were collapsed, forming a parsimonious five-level rating scale, which helped to improve the measurement accuracy. After that, unidimensionality of both subscales was confirmed. Then, internal construct validity of the POSAS v2.0 was demonstrated (through item fit to the Rasch model). Reliability indices were high (≥0.80). No significant differential item functioning was detected concerning age or sex. This study demonstrates the good psychometric properties of a simplified Rasch-based version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale with five response options (POSAS v2.1) in patients with postsurgical linear scars, and provides insights for future refinement of the tool.

BackgroundNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for postsurgical incision treatment has demonstrated benefits. A prospective randomized study was developed including 32 patients who underwent bilateral breast reduction mammoplasty. Patients served as their own control and received NPWT to one breast and fixation strips to the other breast.MethodsThe primary outcome was the number of wound healing complications within 21 days when comparing NPWT treatment with fixation strips. The secondary outcome was aesthetic appearance and quality of scarring using questionnaires [visual analogue scale (VAS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)] scored at day 42-, 90-, 180- and 365-day follow-up using additional scar measurement modalities, such as viscoelasticity.ResultsFor the 32 included patients, the number of wound complications was significantly lower (p < 0.004) for the NPWT treated sites compared to fixation strips. POSAS and VAS scores at 42 and 90 days revealed a significantly better quality of scarring in the NPWT treatment breasts than in fixation strips. At 180-day follow-up, there was a significant improvement in VAS scores, as well as a comparable improvement in POSAS scores. No consistent significant improvement in scar quality was demonstrated with the assays that were used.ConclusionsOur study showed less complications and a significant improvement in quality of scarring in favor of the NPWT-treated sites. The results indicate NPWT to be an attractive option for these patients.Level of Evidence IIThis 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.

Objective:Bladder injury is one of the complications of cesarean section (CS). It is reported that the overall incidence of bladder injury is 0.22-0.44% of CS. It is, however, unclear what factors influence this rate. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in bladder injury rate between scheduled and emergency CS, as well as in primary and repeat CS at a large metropolitan hospital that serves a population at high risk for obstetric complications. In addition, the use of urology consultation following bladder injury and whether demographic factors and labor characteristics affect the rate of bladder injury were investigated.Material and Methods:A total of 8,488 records were reviewed (4,292 primary CS and 4,196 repeat CS) from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020. The incidence of bladder injury was calculated and the rate of intraoperative urology/urogynecology consultation was recorded. Then the association between bladder injury and intraoperative urology/urogynecology consultation and between bladder injury and maternal age, body mass index (BMI), and gestational age were compared.Results:There was a significant increase in risk of bladder injury in repeat CS versus primary CS (p=0.01). There was also a significant increase in risk of bladder injury in emergency CS versus scheduled CS (p=0.04). Intraoperative urogynecology/urology consultations were significantly higher in the bladder injury versus no bladder injury groups (p<0.0001). Both emergency CS and repeat CS are predictors of bladder injury with odd ratios of 5.7 and 7.4, respectively.Conclusion:These results add to the existing evidence that bladder injury is a rare complication in CS that may occur more often in women undergoing repeat or emergency CS than primary or scheduled CS. Given that the risk increases with repeat or emergency CS, patients should be made aware of such risks and surgeons should make careful intraoperative considerations with close postoperative follow-ups.

PurposeThe Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is a questionnaire that was developed to assess scar quality. It consists of two separate six-item scales (Observer Scale and Patient Scale), both of which are scored on a 10-point rating scale. After many years of experience with this scale in burn scar assessment, it is appropriate to examine its psychometric properties using Rasch analysis.MethodsCross-sectional data collection from seven clinical trials resulted in a data set of 1,629 observer scores and 1,427 patient scores of burn scars. We examined the person–item map, item fit statistics, reliability, response category ordering, and dimensionality of the POSAS.ResultsThe POSAS showed an adequate fit to the Rasch model, except for the item surface area. Person reliability of the Observer Scale and Patient Scale was 0.82 and 0.77, respectively. Dimensionality analysis revealed that the unexplained variance by the first contrast of both scales was 1.7 units. Spearman correlation between the Observer Scale Rasch measure and the overall opinion of the clinician was 0.75.ConclusionThe Rasch model demonstrated that the POSAS is a reliable and valid scale that measures the single-construct scar quality.

BackgroundSkin grafting is the current gold standard for treatment of deeper burns. How patients appraise the donor-site scar is poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of donor-site scars after split skin grafting and identify possible predictors. MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were included in a Dutch burn centre during one year. Patient-reported quality of donor-site scars and their worst burn scar was assessed at 12 months using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Mixed model analyses were used to identify predictors of scar quality. ResultsThis study included 115 donor-site scars of 72 patients with a mean TBSA burned of 11.2%. The vast majority of the donor-site scars (84.4%) were rated as having at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and the overall opinion on 80.9% of the donor-site scars was that they deviated from normal skin 12 months after surgery. The overall opinion on the donor-site scar was 3.2 ± 2.1 vs. 5.1 ± 2.4 on the burn scar. A younger age, female gender, a darker skin type, and location on the lower leg were predictors of reduced donor-site scar quality. In addition, time to re-epithelization was associated with scar quality. ConclusionThis study provided new insights in long-term scar quality of donor-sites. Donor-site scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the population 12 months after surgery. Results of this study can be used to inform patients on the long-term outcomes of their scars and to tailor preventive or therapeutic treatment options.

BackgroundAn occlusive overnight intensive patch medical device (OIP) containing onion extract and allantoin has been developed for preventing and treating dermatologic scars and keloids. Here, we examined the efficacy and safety of the OIP for post-dermatologic surgery scars.MethodsThis was an intra-individual randomized, observer-blind, controlled study in adults with post-dermatologic surgery scars. Two scars per subject were randomized to no treatment or overnight treatment with the OIP for 12–24 weeks. Scar quality was assessed using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and a Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale.ResultsA total of 125 subjects were included. The decrease in observer-assessed POSAS from baseline was significantly greater for treated than untreated scars at week 6 (p < 0.001) and 24 (p = 0.001). The decrease in patient-assessed POSAS was significantly greater for the treated scar than the untreated scar at week 12 (p = 0.017) and 24 (p = 0.014). Subject- and investigator-evaluated Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores were higher for the treated than the untreated scar at all visits. All subjects considered the global comfort of the OIP to be good or very good, and no safety concerns were identified.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that the OIP safely promotes scar healing after minor dermatologic surgery.Level of Evidence IIThis 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.