Taritsa, Iulianna C.

Background: In this systematic review, we assessed the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Clostridium histolyticum collagenase (CCH) and tissue subcision (TS) for treating cellulite, which ranges from subtle to pronounced lesions. Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines for CCH and TS treatment to the thigh and gluteal regions. A proportion meta-analysis was then conducted using Stata statistical software. Results: A total of 14 studies were incorporated into the final analysis. Nine focused on TS and five on CCH injection, collectively reporting outcomes for 1254 patients. Of these, 465 received CCH injection and 789 underwent subcision. For bruising, rates were 89% [95% confidence interval (CI), 71%–96%] with CCH injection and 99% (95% CI, 85%–99%) for subcision; pain requiring analgesic was reported at 74% (95% CI, 55%–87%) for CCH and 60% (95% CI, 43%–76%) for subcision; both showed induration at 7% (95% CI, 5%–11% for CCH, 95% CI, 2%–25% for subcision), whereas skin discoloration was higher post-CCH injection at 16% (95% CI, 10%–26%) compared with 7% (95% CI, 5%–10%) postsubcision. Conclusions: Both CCH and TS seem effective treatments for cellulite. However, upon evaluating the adverse outcomes between the two modalities, subcision demonstrated a higher incidence of bruising, albeit similar rates of induration compared with CCH injection. Conversely, the CCH injection group manifested a higher propensity for pain requiring analgesia and notably exhibited increased instances of skin discoloration compared with their subcision patient group. Further standardized research is crucial for more informed cellulite treatment decisions and for comparing efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between TS and CCH.

There is extensive coverage in the existing literature on implant-associated lymphomas like anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, but breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC) has received limited scholarly attention since its first case in 1992. Thus, this study aims to conduct a qualitative synthesis focused on the underexplored association between breast implants and BIA-SCC. A systematic review was conducted utilizing the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify all currently reported cases of BIA-SCC. Additionally, a literature review was performed to identify potential biochemical mechanisms that could lead to BIA-SCC. Studies were vetted for quality using the NIH quality assessment tool. From an initial pool of 246 papers, 11 met the quality criteria for inclusion, examining a total of 14 patients aged between 40 and 81 years. BIA-SCC was found in a diverse range of implants, including those with smooth and textured surfaces, as well as those filled with saline and silicone. The condition notably manifested a proclivity for aggressive clinical progression, as evidenced by a mortality rate approximating 21.4% within a post-diagnostic interval of six months. Our literature review reveals that chronic inflammation, driven by various external factors such as pathogens and implants, can initiate carcinogenesis through epigenetic modifications and immune system alterations. This includes effects from exosomes and macrophage polarization, showcasing potential pathways for the pathogenesis of BIA-SCC. The study highlights the pressing need for further investigation into BIA-SCC, a subject hitherto inadequately addressed in the academic sphere. This necessitates the urgency for early screening and intervention to improve postoperative outcomes. While the review is confined by its reliance on case reports and series, it serves as a valuable reference for future research endeavors.

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.