Keloid scar formation arises from a disorganized fibroproliferative collagen response that extends beyond the original wound margins because of excessive production of extracellular matrix (ECM). Despite treatment options for keloid scars including medical and surgical therapies, such as intralesional steroid injection and surgical excision, the recurrence rate remains high. Herein we consolidate recently published narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta‐analyses to provide an overview of updated treatment recommendations for keloidal scar formation. PubMed search engine was used to access the MEDLINE database to investigate updates regarding keloid incidence and treatment. More than 100 articles were reviewed. Keloid management remains a multimodal approach. There continues to be no gold standard of treatment that provides a consistently low recurrence rate; however, the increasing number of available treatments and synergistic combinations of these treatments (i.e., laser‐based devices in combination with intralesional steroids, or 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) in combination with steroid therapy) is showing favorable results. Future studies could target the efficacy of novel treatment modalities (i.e., autologous fat grafting or stem cell‐based therapies) for keloid management. This review article provides updated treatment guidelines for keloids and discusses insight into management to assist patient‐focused, evidence‐based clinical decision making.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Given that abdominal aorta is a retroperitoneal structure, increased body mass index (BMI) may have an adverse effect upon the quality of aortic ultrasonographic imaging.Purpose: To assess the hypothesis that increased BMI is associated with worsening point-of-care abdominal aortic ultrasonographic image quality.Methods: This is a retrospective single-center study of point-of-care abdominal aortic ultrasound examinations performed in an academic emergency department (ED) with fellowship-trained emergency ultrasonography faculty performing quality assurance review.Results: Mean ± SD BMI was 27.4 ± 6.2, among the 221 included records. The overall quality rating decreased as BMI increased (correlation coefficient − 0.24; P < .001) and this persisted after adjustment for age and sex (P < .001). Although BMI was higher on average in the records that were of insufficient quality for clinical decisions when compared with those of sufficient quality (mean BMI 28.7 vs 27.0), this did not reach statistical significance in a univariable setting (P = .11) or after adjusting for age and sex (P = .14). Conclusion:This study data shows a decrease in point-of-care abdominal aorta ultrasound imaging quality as BMI increases, though this difference did not result in a statistically significant impairment in achieving the minimum quality for clinical decisions. This finding may help ameliorate some clinician concerns about ultrasonography for patients with high BMI.