Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2023; 39(05): 501-507
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769807
Original Article

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

Virginia E. Drake
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Livonia, Michigan
,
Jeffrey S. Moyer
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Livonia, Michigan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Keywords

patient-reported outcome measure - scar scale - laser outcomes - scar evaluation - skin cancer reconstruction


Publication History

Article published online:
08 June 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Moyer JS. Commentary on: “Visual Attention to Facial Defects Predicts Willingness to Pay for Reconstructive Surgery” by Ryan et al. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (06) 443-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Choo AMH, Ong YS, Issa F. Scar assessment tools: how do they compare?. Front Surg 2021; 8: 643098
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tyack Z, Simons M, Spinks A, Wasiak J. A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use. Burns 2012; 38 (01) 6-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van der Wal MBA, Verhaegen PDHM, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PPM. A clinimetric overview of scar assessment scales. J Burn Care Res 2012; 33 (02) e79-e87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Truong PT, Abnousi F, Yong CM. et al. Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and patients' perspectives. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (05) 1291-1299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nicholas RS, Falvey H, Lemonas P. et al. Patient-related keloid scar assessment and outcome measures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (03) 648-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Choi Y, Lee JH, Kim YH. et al. Impact of postthyroidectomy scar on the quality of life of thyroid cancer patients. Ann Dermatol 2014; 26 (06) 693-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aydemir E, Kiziltoprak H, Aydemir GA. Comparison of clinical outcomes of upper eyelid blepharoplasty using two different suture techniques. Beyoglu Eye J 2022; 7 (01) 18-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Peters F, Mücke M, Möhlhenrich SC. et al. Esthetic outcome after nasal reconstruction with paramedian forehead flap and bilobed flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74 (04) 740-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sethukumar P, Ly D, Awad Z, Tolley NS. Scar satisfaction and body image in thyroidectomy patients: prospective study in a tertiary referral centre. J Laryngol Otol 2018; 132 (01) 60-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ha JH, Koo YT, Park SO, Kim IK, Chung JH, Kim S. Revisiting straight-line repair in unilateral complete cleft lip: a comparison with rotation-advancement repair. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021; 50 (08) 1047-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nedelec B, Shankowsky HA, Tredget EE. Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver Scar Scale and scar volume. J Burn Care Rehabil 2000; 21 (03) 205-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eskes AM, Brölmann FE, van de Kar AL. et al. Values of patients and caregivers for donor site scars: an inter-observer analysis between patients and caregivers and prediction of cosmetic satisfaction. Burns 2012; 38 (06) 796-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 da Costa PTL, Echevarría-Guanilo ME, Gonçalves N, Girondi JBR, Gonçalves ADC. Subjective tools for burn scar assessment: an integrative review. Adv Skin Wound Care 2021; 34 (06) 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chae JK, Kim JH, Kim EJ, Park K. Values of a Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale to evaluate the facial skin graft scar. Ann Dermatol 2016; 28 (05) 615-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Shao K, Taylor L, Miller CJ. et al. 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. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2021; 23 (05) 330-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bozkurt M, Ceran F, Guvercin E, Filinte GT. A new method for scar tissue assessment: modified POSAS observer scale. Burns 2017; 43 (02) 445-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hultman CS, Friedstat JS, Edkins RE, Cairns BA, Meyer AA. Laser resurfacing and remodeling of hypertrophic burn scars: the results of a large, prospective, before-after cohort study, with long-term follow-up. Ann Surg 2014; 260 (03) 519-529 , discussion 529–532
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kantor J. Reliability and photographic equivalency of the Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) scale, an outcome measure for postoperative scars. JAMA Dermatol 2017; 153 (01) 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale - PubMed. Accessed March 27, 2023 at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18090752/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (05) 1481-1489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brown BC, McKenna SP, Solomon M, Wilburn J, McGrouther DA, Bayat A. The Patient-Reported Impact of Scars Measure: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (05) 1439-1449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee EH, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Nehal KS, Pusic AL. FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module for measuring patient-reported outcomes following facial skin cancer surgery. Br J Dermatol 2018; 179 (01) 88-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vaidya TS, Mori S, Khoshab N. et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction following facial skin cancer surgery using the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (09) e2423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gulati A, Grekin R, Neuhaus I. et al. Long-term appearance-related outcomes of facial reconstruction after skin cancer resection. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2023; 25 (04) 344-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pepper JP, Asaria J, Kim JC, Baker SR, Moyer JS. Patient assessment of psychosocial dysfunction following nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (02) 430-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lyons AB, Ozog DM, Lim HW, Viola K, Tang A, Jones LR. The Detroit Keloid Scale: a validated tool for rating keloids. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2023; 25 (02) 119-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Meynköhn A, Fischer S, Neuss C, Willkomm LM, Kneser U, Kotsougiani-Fischer D. Fractional ablative carbon dioxide laser treatment of facial scars: improvement of patients' quality of life, scar quality, and cosmesis. J Cosmet Dermatol 2021; 20 (07) 2132-2140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chen R, Liu Z, Zheng H, Wang M, Wang B. Efficacy of combining erbium:YAG and fractional CO2 laser for the treatment of facial scarring. Eur J Dermatol 2022; 32 (06) 770-780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Xu H, Li J, Zhou Z, Bi J, Li X, Huo R. Skin wound tension reduction device combined with ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser to reduce scar formation after excision of pediatric facial skin lesions: a prospective cohort study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2022; 15: 283-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Seago M, Shumaker PR, Spring LK. et al. Laser treatment of traumatic scars and contractures: 2020 International Consensus Recommendations. Lasers Surg Med 2020; 52 (02) 96-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jared Christophel J, Elm C, Endrizzi BT, Hilger PA, Zelickson B. A randomized controlled trial of fractional laser therapy and dermabrasion for scar resurfacing. Dermatol Surg 2012; 38 (04) 595-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sobanko JF, Vachiramon V, Rattanaumpawan P, Miller CJ. Early postoperative single treatment ablative fractional lasing of Mohs micrographic surgery facial scars: a split-scar, evaluator-blinded study. Lasers Surg Med 2015; 47 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Buelens S, Van Hove AS, Ongenae K. 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. 01) S75-S84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Chi H, Zhao X, Shen L, Liu Y, Cai M. Optimal timing of fractional CO 2 laser on cleft lip scars: a single-blind randomized controlled cohort study. Dermatol Surg 2023; 49 (02) 145-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lin MJ, Dubin DP, Torbeck III RL. et al. Early fractional ablative laser for skin cancer excision scars: a randomized split-scar study. Dermatol Surg 2023; 49 (04) 338-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kim SG, Kim EY, Kim YJ, Lee SI. The efficacy and safety of ablative fractional resurfacing using a 2,940-Nm Er:YAG laser for traumatic scars in the early posttraumatic period. Arch Plast Surg 2012; 39 (03) 232-237
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Karmisholt KE, Banzhaf CA, Glud M. et al. Laser treatments in early wound healing improve scar appearance: a randomized split-wound trial with nonablative fractional laser exposures vs. untreated controls. Br J Dermatol 2018; 179 (06) 1307-1314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Verhaeghe E, Ongenae K, Dierckxsens L, Bostoen J, Lambert J. Nonablative fractional laser resurfacing for the treatment of scars and grafts after Mohs micrographic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2013; 27 (08) 997-1002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Shin JU, Gantsetseg D, Jung JY, Jung I, Shin S, Lee JH. Comparison of non-ablative and ablative fractional laser treatments in a postoperative scar study. Lasers Surg Med 2014; 46 (10) 741-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 The Effectiveness of Early Combined CO 2 Ablative Fractional Laser and 595-nm Pulsed Dye Laser Treatment After Scar Revision. Accessed March 8, 2023 at: https://oce-ovid-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/article/00001665-202104000-00045?relatedarticle=y
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Treatment of Surgical Scars With Combination Pulsed Dye and Fractional Nonablative Laser. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Accessed March 8, 2023 at: https://oce-ovid-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/article/00000658-202212000-00006?relatedarticle=y
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Chitgopeker P, Goettsche L, Landherr MJ. et al. 1550-nm nonablative fractional laser versus 10,600-nm ablative fractional laser in the treatment of surgical and traumatic scars: a comparison study on efficacy and treatment regimen. Dermatol Surg 2020; 46 (06) 780-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Kent RA, Shupp J, Fernandez S, Prindeze N, DeKlotz CMC. Effectiveness of early laser treatment in surgical scar minimization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dermatol Surg 2020; 46 (03) 402-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Dey JK, Ishii LE, Boahene KDO, Byrne PJ, Ishii M. Measuring outcomes of Mohs defect reconstruction using eye-tracking technology. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (06) 518-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ryan JF, Ishii LE, Dey JK, Boahene KDO, Byrne PJ, Ishii M. Visual attention to facial defects predicts willingness to pay for reconstructive surgery. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (06) 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar