Dermatofibromas most commonly occur on limbs and rarely occur on the face. Dermatofibroma occurring on the face is associated with unusual clinicopathologic features and a more aggressive clinical course in comparison to typical cases. Additionally, the most common subtype found in previous studies was benign fibrous histiocytoma, with the keloid type being very rare (about 1% of reported cases). The aim of this study was to present our experience with a keloidal dermatofibroma of the face, which is usually missed clinically, and to discuss the treatment of a keloidal dermatofibroma in this location.

Background Nipple reconstruction is usually performed as a delayed procedure in patients with breast cancer who undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery using a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. The authors designed this study to evaluate the utility of breast reconstruction based on a DIEP flap and immediate nipple reconstruction. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction performed by a single plastic surgeon from October 2016 to June 2018. Through a questionnaire and chart review, we compared surgical results and complications in cases of single-stage nipple reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy (n = 17) with patients who underwent delayed nipple reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, or simple mastectomy (n = 7). Results In a subjective analysis using clinical photos, the immediate nipple reconstruction group had higher scores than their counterparts in an evaluation of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) (NAC placement, 3.34 vs. 3.04; nipple projection, 3.05 vs. 3.03; nipple size, 3.30 vs. 3.29). No significant differences between the groups were found in terms of complications. Conclusions Simultaneous nipple reconstruction is a reliable surgical method with economic advantages. No differences were found in terms of outcomes and complications in comparison to delayed reconstruction. Therefore, surgeons can consider simultaneous nipple reconstruction without particular concerns about asymmetry or necrosis.

BackgroundMallet fracture can easily occur during sports activities or in daily life; however, the principles and methods of treatment for such fractures remain debated. Among the surgical treatments, various methods of closed reduction have been proposed. We treated patients with the extension block method (EBM) and the direct pinning method (DPM), and then compared the results. We assessed differences in range of motion and measurements of finger movement after surgery.MethodsA total of 41 patients who underwent surgery from August 2013 to September 2015 were evaluated retrospectively. Among them, 21 patients were treated with the EBM and 20 patients were treated with the DPM. We then compared extensor lag, range of motion, and outcomes according to Crawford’s criteria between before surgery and at 6 to 8 months postoperatively.ResultsThe postoperative extensor lag improvement was 4.28° and 10.73°, and the postoperative arc of motion was 55.76° and 61.17° in the EBM and DPM groups, respectively. The Crawford assessment showed no statistically significant difference between the groups, although the score in the DPM group was higher than that in the EBM group (3.5 vs. 3.1).ConclusionsAs closed reduction methods for the treatment of mallet fracture, both the EBM and DPM showed good results. However, the DPM proved to be superior to the EBM in that it produced greater improvements in extensor lag and range of motion.

No abstract