Background The interest in youthful appearance and rejuvenating procedures is unbroken in our society. Besides surgical procedures, permanent fillers are utilized. The incorrect and unprofessional use of these substances, auto-injections in particular, have devastating results for patients and are challenging for the plastic surgeon. The aim of this retrospective study was to delineate the differences between permanent and non-permanent filler complications and appropriate treatment options. Methods We conducted a retrospective study and researched the hospital information system in the time period from 2001 to 2020. Patients with unprofessional use of permanent fillers, auto-injections and injections of unformulated substances were determined. Age, gender, localization, complications, length of hospital stay, comorbidities, histopathological workups and surgical salvage procedures were noted. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results Seventeen patients were identified from 2001 till 2020. In four cases, auto-injections by the patients were the cause, whereas in the other patients the injections were performed by medical staff. Ages range from 18 to 57 years. Fourteen patients were female and three were male. The injected substances could be recognized as synthol, silicone, vaseline, fat tissue, hyaluronic acid as well as non-medical substances. Surgical procedures were necessary in eleven cases. One patient died because of the underlying diseases. Conclusion Our results indicate different sequels of filler materials injected in an unprofessional way, possible complications, conservative and surgical techniques to resolve these rare complications. We suggest a staged therapy adjusted to the clinical symptoms. Milder symptoms can be handled conservatively, whereas severe infections, skin breakdowns or persistent granuloma are justifying indications for surgical treatment. Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Aims This study aims at assessing the treatment effect, disease severity and quality-of-life outcomes of botulinum toxin (BTX) injections for focal hyperhidrosis. Methods We included randomized controlled trials of BTX injections compared with placebo for patients with primary or secondary focal hyperhidrosis. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched to August 2020. Gravimetric sweat rate reduction, disease severity measured by Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale and quality-of-life assessment measured by Dermatology Life Quality Index were the outcomes of interest. Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were employed for quality assessment of given randomized controlled trials. Results Eight studies met our inclusion criteria (n=937). Overall, risk bias was mixed and mostly moderate. BTX injections showed reduced risk in comparison with placebo for the gravimetric quantitative sweat reduction of > 50 % from baseline (risk difference: 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74). Additionally, improvements were seen for disease severity and quality-of-life assessments evaluated by Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Score reduction of ≥ 2 points (risk difference: 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.69) and mean change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (mean difference: − 5.55, 95% CI − 7.11 to − 3.98). The acquired data were insufficient to assess for long-term outcomes and limited to an eight-week follow-up period. Conclusions In focal axillary hyperhidrosis, BTX significantly reduces sweat production and yields superior outcomes in assessments of disease severity and quality-of-life. However, the quality-of-evidence is overall moderate and included studies account for short-term trial periods only. Further studies assessing BTX in comparison with first-line treatments for hyperhidrosis are warranted. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Experimental study.

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a diagnosis of exclusion. It occurs rarely and is frequently misdiagnosed. It can result in severe tissue loss, particularly in surgical units with little experience. Nevertheless, surgical treatment might be necessary for reconstruction, once the progression of these wounds is controlled. We aimed to characterize medical findings in Pyoderma patients with extensive defects to assess the surgical procedures and their outcome. A retrospective study was conducted at our centre over an 18-year period. Inclusion criteria were the diagnosis of Pyoderma gangrenosum and at least one surgical intervention. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Sixteen patients were included. The mean size of the lesions was noted with 12 × 8 cm. Surgical procedures comprised debridements/necrectomies, allograft conditioning, negative pressure wound therapy, skin grafts, and microvascular free flaps. Seven patients were discharged with healed wounds, six with minor wound healing disturbances. Three patients succumbed to their underlying diseases. Drug-based therapy can stop the progress of Pyoderma, but severe tissue loss can be a persistent problem. According to our data, reconstructive-surgical treatments (debridement, autologous and allogenous skin transplantation and microvascular free flaps) act as an integral component of the therapy and can be safe options for selected patients. Furthermore, we provide an algorithm that we follow at our department in severe cases.

Burn injuries can be life-threatening, thus standardized procedures are essential to ensure the best medical care is provided after injury. Therefore, burn care guidelines were created throughout the world. There are many similarities within the different burn guidelines, especially in basic burn care procedures. Taking a closer look, it becomes clear that there are also a lot of disparities within the guidelines. In this review the guidelines of the German Society of Burn Treatment (DGV), British Burn Association (BBA), European Burns Association (EBA), American Burn Association (ABA), Australian and New Zealand Burn Association (ANZBA), and the International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) are compared. The DGV-guidelines focus on pre-hospital treatment measures, intensive care treatment and acute wound therapy, whereas the BBA puts emphasis on infrastructure and staff qualification. The EBA created guidelines for medical practitioners and non-medical staff to standardize burn care in European countries with special focus on clear treatment recommendations and best infrastructural facilities. The ABA underlines the need for best qualified medical staff and ABLS- (Advanced Burn Life Support) standards. The ANZBA focuses on best treatment options including novel wound healing biotechnologies and post-burn return-to-function rehabilitation. In contrast to all other guidelines, the ISBI does not only deal with burn care in developed countries but also in resource-limited settings. Special focus lies on the discussion of ethical issues and cost-effectiveness. In this review, advantages and disadvantages of each guideline are discussed. These findings are supposed to help improving burn care procedures worldwide.