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
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2021
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
The natural evolution of facial scars has not been well described. Identifying factors that correlate with optimal scar healing may help patients and physicians during the perioperative period.
Methods:
A retrospective study of 108 facial skin cancer patient scars was performed. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used to grade scars at two time points (1 week and 3 months postoperatively). Paired two-tailed t-tests identified differences in scar ratings between the time points. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) explored whether POSAS scores differed by anatomic site or reconstruction type. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to identify if 1-week scar appearance correlated with scar appearance at 3 months.
Results:
Between 1 week and 3 months the total POSAS score improved by 36.3% and overall opinion of the scar improved by 38.6% (p < 0.001). Facial cosmetic units differed in their 1-week and 3-month scores and all anatomic sites demonstrated significant improvement between time points. Differential scoring occurred among reconstruction types. Scar appearance at 1 week was able to predict overall scar appearance at the 3-month visit (area under the curve = 0.7732).
Conclusions:
Early scar appearance predicts later scar appearance, and scars will improve by nearly 40% 3 months after surgery. These data can be used to assist with perioperative counseling and expectation management.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RheeJS, MatthewsBA, NeuburgM, LoganBR, BurzynskiM, NattingerAB. Validation of a quality-of-life instrument for patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006; 8(5):314–318.
ZhangJ, MillerCJ, O'MalleyV, EtzkornJR, ShinTM, SobankoJF. Patient quality of life fluctuates before and after Mohs micrographic surgery: a longitudinal assessment of the patient experience. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018; 78(6):1060–1067.
4.
DeyJK, IshiiLE, BoaheneKDO, ByrnePJ, IshiiM. Measuring outcomes of Mohs defect reconstruction using eye-tracking technology. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019; 21(6):518–525.
5.
RiefW, Shedden-MoraMC, LafertonJA, et al.Preoperative optimization of patient expectations improves long-term outcome in heart surgery patients: results of the randomized controlled PSY-HEART trial. BMC Med. 2017; 15(1):4.
6.
BingelU, WanigasekeraV, WiechK, et al.The effect of treatment expectation on drug efficacy: imaging the analgesic benefit of the opioid remifentanil. Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3(70):70ra14.
7.
BeckerR, DoringC, DeneckeA, BroszM. Expectation, satisfaction and clinical outcome of patients after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(9):1433–1441.
8.
BourneRB, ChesworthBM, DavisAM, MahomedNN, CharronKD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(1):57–63.
9.
HamiltonDF, LaneJV, GastonP, et al.What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(4):e002525.
10.
McWilliamsAB, DouglasSL, RedmondAC, et al.Litigation after hip and knee replacement in the National Health Service. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(1):122–126.
11.
FixWC, MillerCJ, EtzkornJR, ShinTS, HoweN, SobankoJF. Comparison of accuracy of patient and physician scar length estimates before Mohs micrographic surgery for facial skin cancers. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(3):e200725.
12.
BondJS, DuncanJA, SattarA, et al.Maturation of the human scar: an observational study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 121(5):1650–1658.
13.
DraaijersLJ, TempelmanFR, BotmanYA, et al.The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 113(7):1960–1965; discussion 1966–1967.
14.
van de KarAL, CorionLU, SmeuldersMJ, DraaijersLJ, van der HorstCM, van ZuijlenPP. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 116(2):514–522.
15.
MillerCJ, AntunesMB, SobankoJF. Surgical technique for optimal outcomes: Part I. Cutting tissue: Incising, excising, and undermining. J Am Acad Dermatol., 2015; 72(3):377–387.
16.
MillerCJ, AntunesMB, SobankoJF. Surgical technique for optimal outcomes: Part II. Repairing tissue: Suturing. J Am Acad Dermatol., 2015; 72(3):389–402.
17.
MasonSJ, GrahamNE. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves: statistical significance and interpretation. Q J R Meteorol Soc. 2002; 128:2145–2166.
18.
GoeiH, van der VliesCH, TuinebreijerWE, van ZuijlenPPM, MiddelkoopE, van BaarME. Predictive validity of short term scar quality on final burn scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in patients with minor to moderate burn severity. Burns. 2017; 43(4):715–723.
19.
EvansJDS. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, Calif: Brooks/Cole Publishing; 1996.
20.
BurgetGC, MenickFJ. The subunit principle in nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985; 76(2):239–247.
21.
SolimanS, HatefDA, HollierLHJr., ThorntonJF. The rationale for direct linear closure of facial Mohs' defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 127(1):142–149.
22.
CampbellRM, PerlisCS, MalikMK, DufresneRGJr. Characteristics of Mohs practices in the United States: a recall survey of ACMS surgeons. Dermatol Surg. 2007; 33(12):1413–1418; discussion 1418.
23.
LarrabeeYC, PhillipsDJ, SclafaniAP. Trends in nasal subunit reconstruction by facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons. Facial Plast Surg. 2017; 33(1):17–19.
24.
MenickFJ. Principles and planning in nasal and facial reconstruction: making a normal face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016; 137(6):1033e–1047e.
ChenMA, DavidsonTM. Scar management: prevention and treatment strategies. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005; 13(4):242–247.
27.
SpringerIN, WannickeB, WarnkePH, et al.Facial attractiveness: visual impact of symmetry increases significantly towards the midline. Ann Plast Surg. 2007; 59(2):156–162.
28.
ShaoK, ParkerC, TaylorL, MitraN, SobankoJF. Reliability of the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) when used with post-surgical scar photographs. Dermatol Surg. 2018; 44(12):1650–1652.
29.
BuelensS, Van HoveAS, OngenaeK, et al.Fractional carbon dioxide laser of recent surgical scars in the head and neck region: a split-scar, evaluator-blinded study. Dermatol Surg. 2017; 43(Suppl. 1):S75–S84.
30.
LindeboomJA, LindeboomR, Bruijnesteijn van CoppenraetES, KuijperEJ, TukJ, PrinsJM. Esthetic outcome of surgical excision versus antibiotic therapy for nontuberculous mycobacterial cervicofacial lymphadenitis in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009; 28(11):1028–1030.
