Keloids are pathological scars presenting as nodular lesions that extend beyond the area of injury. They do not spontaneously regress, often continuing to grow over time. The abnormal wound-healing process underlying keloid formation results from the lack of control mechanisms self-regulating cell proliferation and tissue repair. Keloids may lead to cosmetic disfigurement and functional impairment and affect the quality of life. Although several treatments were reported in the literature, no universally effective therapy was found to date. The most common approach is intralesional corticosteroid injection alone or in combination with other treatment modalities. Triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) is the most commonly used intralesional corticosteroid. The aim of this article was to review the use of TAC, alone or in combination, in the treatment of keloid scars. The response to corticosteroid injection alone is variable with 50–100% regression and a recurrence rate of 33% and 50% after 1 and 5 years, respectively. Compared to verapamil, TAC showed a faster and more effective response even though with a higher complication rate. TAC combined with verapamil was proved to be effective with statistically significant overall improvements of scars over time and long-term stable results. TAC and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) intralesional injections were found to achieve comparable outcomes when administered alone, although 5-FU was more frequently associated with side effects. Conversely, the combination of 5-FU and TAC was more effective and showed fewer undesirable effects compared to TAC or 5-FU alone. Several kinds of laser treatments were reported to address keloids; however, laser therapy alone was burdened with a high recurrence rate. Better results were described by combining CO2, pulsed-dye or Nd: YAG lasers with TAC intralesional injections. Further options such as needle-less intraepidermal drug delivery are being explored, but more studies are needed to establish safety, feasibility and effectiveness of this approach.

The literature still lacks a review regarding PROs applied for rhinoplasty. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the literature to identify PROMs that assess patient satisfaction and quality of life after rhinoplasty. The aim of our study was to identify existing questionnaires and to summarize their development, psychometric properties, and content. A multi-step search of the web-based PubMed database from the National Library of Medicine was performed to identify PROMs that are designed to evaluate satisfaction and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Each potential PROM was examined by three independent reviewers for adherence to inclusion/exclusion criteria. Questionnaires included in the analysis were appraised for their adherence to international guidelines for the development and validation of health outcome questionnaires, as outlined by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcome Trust and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Our search generated a total of 457 articles, 351 that were retrieved in the primary search, and 106 that were found in the references of the first set of articles. The process of development and validation of each of the included PROMs was examined. Only ten of these were identified as surgery-specific questionnaires about rhinoplasty. These were divided into three categories: (1) functional self-assessment (Nasal Surgical Questionnaire, Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation Scale, and Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness); (2) aesthetic self-assessment (Utrecht Questionnaire, FACE-Q rhinoplasty module, Glasgow Benefit Inventory); and (3) aesthetic and functional self-assessment (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation), Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17, RHINO Scale, and Evaluation of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Scale).

There have been increasing reports of skin manifestations in COVID-19 patients. We conducted a systematic review and included manuscripts describing patients with positive RT-PCR coronavirus testing from nasopharyngeal swabs who also developed cutaneous manifestations. A total of 655 patients were selected, with different types of skin rashes: Erythematous maculopapular (n = 250), vascular (n = 146), vesicular (n = 99), urticarial (n = 98), erythema multiforme/generalized pustular figurate erythema/Stevens-Johnson syndrome (n = 22), ocular/periocular (n = 14), polymorphic pattern (n = 9), generalized pruritus (n = 8), Kawasaki disease (n = 5), atypical erythema nodosum (n = 3), and atypical Sweet syndrome (n = 1). Chilblain-like lesions were more frequent in the younger population and were linked to a milder disease course, while fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura appeared in older patients and seemed to predict a more severe prognosis. For vesicular rashes, PCR determined the presence of herpesviruses in the vesicle fluid, which raised the possibility of herpesvirus co-infections. The erythema-multiforme-like pattern, generalized pustular figurate erythema and Stevens-Johnson syndrome were most frequently linked to hydroxychloroquine intake. A positive PCR determination of SARS-COV-2 from conjunctival swabs suggest that eye discharge can also be contagious. These cutaneous manifestations may aid in identifying otherwise asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers in some cases or predict a more severe evolution in others.

Keloid scars are often considered aesthetically unattractive and frustrating problems that occur following injuries. They cause functional and cosmetic deformities, displeasure, itching, pain, and psychological stress and possibly affect joint movement. The combination of these factors ultimately results in a compromised quality of life and diminished functional performance. Various methods have been implemented to improve keloid scars using both surgical and non-surgical approaches. However, it has proven to be a challenge to identify a universal treatment that can deliver optimal results for all types of scars. Through a PubMed search, we explored most of the literature that is available about the intralesional injection treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids and highlights both current (corticosteroid, 5-fluorouracil, bleomycin, interferon, cryotherapy and verapamil) and future treatments (interleukin-10 and botulinum toxin type A). The reference lists of retrieved articles were also analysed. Information was gathered about the mechanism of each injection treatment, its benefits and associated adverse reactions, and possible strategies to address adverse reactions to provide reliable guidelines for determining the optimal treatment for particular types of keloid scars. This article will benefit practitioners by outlining evidence-based treatment strategies using intralesional injections for patients with hypertrophic scars and keloids.

No abstract