Garg, Stuti P.

Background: Inappropriate facial scarring can lead to significant physical and psychosocial morbidity. There is a need to better understand how scar perception varies across ethnic groups, and how it impacts broader quality-of-life domains such as career and sexual well-being. This study evaluates White and Asian patients’ perceptions of facial scars related to symptoms, appearance, psychosocial health, and career/sexual well-being. Methods: Facial surgery patients from 5 providers were recruited to complete the SCAR-Q and Career/Sexual Well-Being (CS) scales through phone or email. Higher scores on both assessments indicate more positive patient perceptions. Results: Among the 147 respondents, 50.3% were Asian and 49.7% were White. Procedures included blepharoplasty (n=56), rhinoplasty (n=20), eyelid revision (n=19), facelift (n=18), Mohs surgery (n=7), chin augmentation (n=6), craniotomy (n=6), and other facial procedures (n=16). White patients scored significantly higher than Asian patients on the SCAR-Q total (median=260 versus 234), appearance (76 versus 59), psychosocial (100 versus 87), and CS (16 versus 12.5) scales ( P =0.004, P <0.001, P =0.026, and P <0.001, respectively). Symptom scores positively correlated with time since surgery in both groups (Asian: r =0.326, P =0.004; White: r =0.319, P =0.011). Conclusions: Asian patients reported more negative perceptions of scar appearance, symptoms, psychosocial impact, and career/sexual well-being than White patients. These findings underscore the importance of tailored follow-up care and counseling to address ethnic differences in scar perception and quality-of-life outcomes.

Abstract Across scar studies, there is a lack of dark‐skinned individuals, who have a predisposition for keloid formation, altered pigmentation and poorer quality of life (QOL). There is a need for patients of colour to be included in scar scale development and validation. In this study, we evaluate the racial diversity of patients included in the validation of scar assessment scales. A systematic review was conducted for articles reporting on the validation of a scar assessment tool. Racial, ethnic and Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) data were extracted. Fifteen scar scale validation studies were included. Nine of the studies did not mention FST, race or ethnicity of the patients. Two of the studies that reported FST or race information only included White patients or included no FST V/VI patients: mapping assessment of scars (MAPS) and University of North Carolina ‘4P’. Only four studies included non‐White patients or dark‐skinned patients in the validation of their scar scale: the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), modified Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), acne QOL and SCAR‐Q scales. The patients included in the modified VSS validation were 7% and 13% FST V/VI, 14% African in the modified POSAS and 4.5% FST V/VI in the SCAR‐Q. We highlight the severe lack of diversity in scar scale validation, with only 4 out of 15 studies including dark‐skinned patients. Given the susceptibility of darker‐skinned individuals to have poorer scarring outcomes, it is critical to include patients of colour in the very assessment tools that determine their scar prognosis. Inclusion of patients of colour in scar scale development will improve scar assessment and clinical decision‐making.