The Natural Evolution of Facial Surgical Scars: A Retrospective Study of Physician-Assessed Scars Using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale Over Two Time Points

Aesthetic Evaluation of Facial Scars in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Longitudinal Pilot Study and Validation of POSAS 2.0 in the Lithuanian Language

Facial basal cell carcinoma (BCC) surgery enhances the quality of life (QoL) but leaves patients with inferior QoL, presumably caused by scarring, emphasizing the need to understand post-surgery aesthetic satisfaction. This study aimed to validate the Lithuanian version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 2.0 and utilise it to identify scar evaluation differences and correlations among POSAS scores and specific aesthetic facial regions, age, gender, surgery types, and short- and long-term QoL. Employing a prospective longitudinal design, 100 patients with facial scars after surgical BCC removal were enrolled. The validation phase confirmed the translated POSAS 2.0 psychometric properties, while the pilot phase used statistical analyses to compare scores among demographic and clinical groups and evaluate correlations between scar assessment and QoL. The findings indicate that the translated Lithuanian version of POSAS 2.0 exhibits good psychometric properties, revealing insights into aesthetic satisfaction with post-surgical facial scars and their impact on QoL. The Lithuanian version of the POSAS 2.0 was established as a valid instrument for measuring post-surgical linear scars. QoL with scar assessment statistically significantly correlates, 6 months after surgery, with worse scores, particularly notable among women, younger patients, and those with tumours in the cheek region.

The Measure of a Scar: Patient Perceptions and Scar Optimization after Skin Cancer Reconstruction

In facial reconstruction after skin cancer resection, management and optimization of postoperative scar is a complex paradigm. Every scar is unique and presents a different challenge-whether due to anatomic, aesthetic, or patient-specific factors. This necessitates a comprehensive evaluation and an understanding of the tools at hand to improve its appearance. How a scar looks is meaningful to patients, and the facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon is tasked with its optimization. Clear documentation of a scar is critical to assess and determine optimal care. Scar scales such as the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Manchester Scar Scale, the Patient and Observer Assessment Scale, the Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating "SCAR" Scale, and FACE-Q, among others, are reviewed here in the context of evaluating postoperative or traumatic scar. Measurement tools objectively describe a scar and may also incorporate the patient's assessment of their own scar. In addition to physical exam, these scales quantify scars that are symptomatic or visually unpleasant and would be best served by adjuvant treatment. The current literature regarding the role of postoperative laser treatment is also reviewed. While lasers are an excellent tool to assist in blending of scar and decreasing pigmentation, studies have failed to evaluate laser in a consistent, standardized way that allows for quantifiable and predictable improvement. Regardless, patients may derive benefit from laser treatment given the finding of subjective improvement in their own perception of scar, even when there is not a significant change to the clinician's eye. This article also discusses recent eye fixation studies which demonstrate the importance of careful repair of large and central defects of the face, and that patients value the quality of the reconstruction.

Mekeres' Psychosocial Internalization Scale: A Scale for the Evaluation of Aesthetic Prejudice in Victims of Accidents and Violence

Background and objectives: One important forensic activity is the assessment of aesthetic injuries where expert criteria and analysis are insufficiently outlined due to the subjective elements related to the traumatized victim. Unaesthetic morphological changes may occur due to various circumstances committed under the Penal Code, resulting in permanent unaesthetic morphological scarring. Considering that most of the existing scales for the assessment of aesthetic prejudices refer only to morphometric changes, our aim was to create a modern method for the evaluation of aesthetic damage that also considers its social and psychological consequences. Materials and Methods: In this study, we developed the Mekereș Psychosocial Internalization Scale (MPIS), which proposes a clear boundary between the presence or absence of aesthetic damage. The traumatized person is evaluated after a minimum of six months (in the case of an average scar, necessary for defining the character of the scar) to assess changes in the physiognomy or even alterations in the victim’s aesthetic perception of their own body. Our study was conducted on 103 patients with scars, and the results were compared to 101 controls (subjects without scars). Results: Individuals with scars have a distorted perception (compared to controls) of the support provided by significant people [t (202) = 2.473; p = 0.01]. Hypothetically, they will most likely exhibit a nuanced socio-cognitive and psycho-emotional vulnerability that may be the source of future dysfunctions. The fidelity of the MPIS scale was estimated by employing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, resulting in a value of 0.934 (15 items). The exploratory factorial analysis with Varimax rotation mode sustains a single dominant factor, indicating a good internal consistency. The results of this study provide evidence regarding the psychosocial or psychometric worthiness of MPIS. Conclusions: MPIS can be used for research and as an instrument to assess aesthetic damage or disfigurement by forensic physicians and lawyers.