No abstract

Multiple techniques for skin graft fixation have been proposed, but the evidence underlying these techniques is unclear. This study aimed to review the literature for full-thickness graft fixation techniques. PubMed was electronically searched to identify relevant studies. The search strategy identified 91 relevant articles. These consisted of 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 10 observational cohort studies (8 retrospective, 2 prospective), and 79 descriptive studies (case series, case reports, or expert opinion articles). Both identified RCTs compared the tie-over dressing against a modified tie-over dressing. The tie-over dressing was also included in all identified observational studies, and comparisons were made against quilting/mattress suturing (4 studies, 181 grafts in total), simple pressure dressings (3 studies, 528 grafts), non-tie-over dressings non-specifically (1 study, 71 grafts), hydrocolloid dressings (1 study, 62 grafts), and double-tie over dressings (1 study, 43 grafts). No significant differences were found between fixation methods for graft take, haematoma rate, and infection rate. No studies have found a significant difference between tie-over dressings and alternative graft fixation technique, with the most evidence for simple pressure dressings and quilting/mattress suturing. However, the evidence base consists mostly of small, retrospective observational studies. This article describes the current evidence base and this should be considered when planning future reports in the field.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is considered the gold-standard treatment for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) particularly for sites with a high risk of incomplete excision such as the central face, for tumours with an aggressive growth pattern and consequent unpredictable subclinical extension and for recurrent tumours. However, the process is more time-consuming than for standard excision (SE), and the magnitude of benefit is uncertain. This article aims to provide a more complete picture of current evidence, including a review of cosmetic outcomes, tissue-sparing ability and cost-effectiveness of MMS. Although robust evidence is lacking, there is a large volume of observational data supporting a low recurrence rate after MMS. The risk of incomplete excision and higher recurrence rate of SE favours the use of MMS at high-risk sites. There is some low-certainty evidence that MMS results in a smaller defect size compared with SE, and that incomplete excision with SE results in larger defects. Larger defects may affect cosmetic outcome but there is no direct evidence that MMS improves cosmetic outcome compared with SE. There is conflicting evidence regarding the cost of MMS compared with SE, as some studies consider MMS less expensive than SE and others consider it more expensive, which may reflect the healthcare setting. A multicentre 10-year randomized controlled trial comparing MMS and SE in the treatment of high-risk BCC would be desirable, but is unlikely to be feasible or ethical. Collection of robust registry data capturing both MMS and SE outcomes would provide additional long-term outcomes.

This review presents and discusses the evidence for MMS to treat cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched; 39 papers were identified for recurrence and 2 papers for costeffectiveness. We included all clinical trials and observational studies, including retrospective reports, and excluded editorials and systematic reviews or meta-analyses. We categorized the evidence under the following headings: tumour recurrence, specific site outcomes (ear, lip, scalp and periocular), cSCC with perineural invasion, and cost-effectiveness. Although there are many observational studies indicating the potential benefits of MMS in the management of certain cSCCs, no randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified. The evidence from comparitor studies suggests that MMS has a lower recurrence rate than that of other treatments for cSCC, including standard excision. Many studies identified were single-armed, but did demonstrate a low to very low recurrence rate of cSCC following MMS. A single recent study suggests MMS for intermediate cSCC is highly cost-effective compared with wide local excision when all-in costs are considered. Since the overall quality of included studies was mixed and highly heterogeneous, further methodologically robust studies with comparator arms or comprehensive long-term registry data would be valuable. It would be ideal to employ a definitive multicentre RCT but given the evidence to date and multiple advantages to MMS, the lack of clinical equipoise makes this difficult to justify. Comparison with current modalities would likely not be ethical/achievable on a like-for-like basis given MMS provides 100% margin assessment, enables histological clearance prior to reconstruction, and minimizes the removal of uninvolved tissue.

Summary This review is part of a series of annual updates that summarize the evidence base for atopic eczema (AE). The aim is to provide a succinct guide for clinicians on the key findings from 14 systematic reviews on the prevention and topical treatment of AE published or indexed in 2018. Various supplements, including long‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, vitamin D and the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, given prenatally and postnatally, have not been shown to prevent AE in infants, although mixed strains of probiotics may decrease the risk of AE if given to the mother during pregnancy and to the infant for the first 6 months of life. In the postnatal period, there is no evidence that hydrolysed formula, compared with cow’s milk formula (CMF), reduces the risk of AE in partially breastfed infants. However, weak evidence suggests that a specific partially hydrolysed whey formula decreases the risk of AE compared with CMF. No specific skin practices can be recommended to reduce the eczema risk in healthy term babies. There is weak evidence of a low risk of reversible hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis suppression following 2–4 weeks of treatment with low‐potency topical steroids, and conflicting evidence as to whether bleach bathing affects skin flora or AE severity. A single study demonstrated that the topical Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib at 2% significantly reduces the Eczema Area and Severity Index compared with vehicle. Topical naltrexone cream 1% improves pruritus (measured using a visual analogue scale) by 30% more than placebo. There is weak evidence that topical alternative therapies, including antioxidants, micronutrients and some herbal medicines, may improve AE.

Summary ‘Dermatological games’ by J. A. Cotterill was a seminal article published in 1981, which attempted to explain the interaction between dermatologists and patients using Berne's game theory. In Part 1 of this series of two reviews, we review Cotterill's original list of games and how they applied to dermatology in the context of when they were written. We then critically appraise Cotterill's article and arguments. Although the article was deliberately provocative, we found Cotterill's arguments to be well‐structured and logical, and the ‘games’ described are well‐conceived. Cotterill's candid analysis of doctors' motivations and the potential impact on the patient is refreshing and insightful. It is striking that, 40 years on, many of the original ‘games’ described remain recognizable in current practice. In Part 2, a list of new ‘games’ that might be observed in modern dermatological practice is introduced. The relevance of Cotterill's paper and an explanation for why his educational article remains relevant to dermatology practice and training today is scrutinized in order to stimulate discussion, promote education and improve patient care.

Summary In this two‐part report, we review and critically appraise ‘Dermatological games’ by J. A. Cotterill, a seminal article published in 1981, which attempted to explain the interaction between dermatologists and patients using Berne's game theory. Part 1 described and critically appraised the educational value of Cotterill's original list of games in relation to how they apply to dermatology practice. In Part 2, a list of new ‘games’ that might be observed in current dermatological practice is introduced. The relevance of Cotterill's paper and an explanation for why his article remains relevant to dermatology practice and training today is scrutinized, in order to stimulate discussion and improve patient care.

No abstract