Striae distensae are an extremely common, therapeutically challenging form of dermal scarring. Risk factors have been reported but much remains to be understood about their epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Up-to-date knowledge of the scientific research and the evidence behind both preventative and therapeutic agents are vital in order to understand striae and to offer patients the best therapeutic alternatives. We present a clinical review of the current literature concerning striae distensae and their prevention and treatment. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using Medline, Embase and Google Scholar. Articles in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish and French were included. Striae distensae occur in pregnancy, puberty and obesity as well as in numerous medical conditions and following therapeutic interventions. Proposed aetiological mechanisms relate to hormones, physical stretch and structural alterations to the integument. Assessment methods include subjective visual scoring and various imaging modalities. Treatments that we have evaluated include topical agents, used prophylactically or therapeutically, as well as light and laser therapies, which have shown improvements in the appearance of striae. Few high level evidence based medicine randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for striae distensae exist. Topical therapeutic agents appear to lack efficacy in the prevention of striae distensae.

Striae distensae (SD) are common dermal lesions, with significant physical and psychological impact. Many therapeutic modalities are available but none can completely eradicate SD. The most common therapy is the application of topicals used both therapeutically and prophylactically. Even though there are many commercially available topical products, not all have sufficient level of evidence to support their continued use in SD. The aim here was to assess the evidence for the use of topicals in SD and to propose a structured approach in managing SD. A systematic search of published literature and manufacturer website information for topicals in SD was carried out. The results showed that there are few studies (n = 11) which investigate the efficacy of topicals in management of SD. Trofolastin and Alphastria creams demonstrated level‐2 evidence of positive results for their prophylactic use in SD. Additionally, tretinoin used therapeutically showed varying results whilst cocoa butter and olive oil did not demonstrate any effect. Overall, there is a distinct lack of evidence for each topical formulation. The majority of topicals failed to mention their effect on early vs. later stages of SD (striae rubrae compared to striae albae) and their role in both prevention and treatment. In conclusion, there is no topical formulation, which is shown to be most effective in eradicating or improving SD. A structured approach in identification and targeted management of symptoms and signs with the appropriate topical is required. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to assess the efficacy of topical products for treatment and prevention of different stages of SD.

Electrical stimulation (ES) has been shown to have beneficial effects in wound healing. It is important to assess the effects of ES on cutaneous wound healing in order to ensure optimization for clinical practice. Several different applications as well as modalities of ES have been described, including direct current (DC), alternating current (AC), high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC), low-intensity direct current (LIDC) and electrobiofeedback ES. However, no one method has been advocated as the most optimal for the treatment of cutaneous wound healing. Therefore, this review aims to examine the level of evidence (LOE) for the application of different types of ES to enhance cutaneous wound healing in the skin. An extensive search was conducted to identify relevant clinical studies utilising ES for cutaneous wound healing since 1980 using PubMed, Medline and EMBASE. A total of 48 studies were evaluated and assigned LOE. All types of ES demonstrated positive effects on cutaneous wound healing in the majority of studies. However, the reported studies demonstrate contrasting differences in the parameters and types of ES application, leading to an inability to generate sufficient evidence to support any one standard therapeutic approach. Despite variations in the type of current, duration, and dosing of ES, the majority of studies showed a significant improvement in wound area reduction or accelerated wound healing compared to the standard of care or sham therapy as well as improved local perfusion. The limited number of LOE-1 trials for investigating the effects of ES in wound healing make critical evaluation and assessment somewhat difficult. Further, better-designed clinical trials are needed to improve our understanding of the optimal dosing, timing and type of ES to be used.