EC Gynaecology

Objective: The goal of this study is to see if removing old hypertrophic scars during a caesarean section (CS) operation provides a significant improvement in terms of both cosmetic and patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods: The study method is prospective. Patients who underwent repetitive CS operations with a pfannenstiel incision that took place at least 3 years before the initial examination in the Istanbul Training and Research Hospital Gynecology Service between 01.02.21 and 01.07.21, had significant scar tissue on the incision line, had not undergone scar revision previously, did not have comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, atopic skin lesions (or any other dermatological lesions around the scar), a family history of dermatological diseases, or morbid obesity, were chosen. The study included 103 patients between the ages of 18 and 40 who underwent scar revision and 50 who did not. In this context, it has been discussed whether scar revision is beneficial by evaluating the scar tissue subjectively using the Patient and Observer Scar Evaluation Scale (POSAS) during the 30^th and 90^th day post-op controls.

Results: The POSAS score of those who underwent scar revision on the 30^th post-op day decreased significantly as a result of the evaluation. There was no statistically significant difference in the change in POSAS score in both groups at the post-op 90^th day.

Conclusion: When the changes in POSAS values were compared between those who had scar revision and those who did not, it was discovered that while there was a continuous decrease in those who had scar revision, there was an increase and then a decrease in those who did not have scar revision.

 Keywords: Cesarean Section; Scar; Hypertrophy; Revision; Pfannenstiel

1. Tully L., et al. “Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK”. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology2 (2002): 120-126.
2. Mackeen AD., et al. “Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 11 (2012): CD003577.
3. Hom DB. “Scar revision in the 21^st century”. Facial Plastic Surgery 5 (2012): 471-472.
4. Ward RE., et al. “Surgical and noninvasive modalities for scar revision”. Dermatologic Clinics 3 (2019): 375-386.
5. Alderdice F., et al. “Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2 (2003): CD003577.
6. Huang Y., et al. “Comparison of the effect of skin closure materials on skin closure during cesarean delivery”. PLoS One6 (2022): e0270337.
7. Van de Kar AL., et al. “Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale”. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2 (2005): 514-522.
8. D'Orazio. "UV radiation and the skin". International Journal of Molecular Sciences6 (2013): 12222-12248. 
9. Kelly A. “Keloidler ve hipertrofik yara izleri”. İçinde: Parish L, Lask G, editörler. Estetik Dermatoloji.New York: McGraw-Hill (1991): 8-69. 
10. Greaves NS., et al. “Current understanding of molecular and cellular mechanisms in fibroplasia and angiogenesis during acute wound healing”. Journal of Dermatological Science 3 (2013): 206-217.
11. Li J., et al. “Pathophysiology of acute wound healing”. Clinics in Dermatology 1 (2007): 9-18.
12. Gonzalez ACDO., et al. “Wound healing - A literature review”. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 5 (2016): 614-620.
13. Kaban A., et al. “Comparison of cutting diathermy and scalpel in terms of delay in wound healing and scar appearance in skin incision: a prospective observational study”. İstanbul Medical Journal 4 (2019): 338-341.
14. Kim JW., et al. “Evaluating outcomes of pulsed dye laser therapy combined with intralesional triamcinolone injection after surgical removal of hypertrophic cesarean section scars”. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 4 (2022): 1471-1476.
15. Bağlı İ., et al. “Predictors of the recurrence of surgically removed previous caesarean skin scars at caesarean section: A retrospective cohort study”. Scars, Burns and Healing 7 (2021): 20595131211023388.
16. Cromi A., et al. “Cosmetic outcomes of skin closure with tissue adhesive or staples in repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial”. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 271 (2022): 112-116.
17. Fleisher J., et al. “Patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome in a randomized study of cesarean skin closure”. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 22 (2019): 3830-3835.
18. Napavichayanun S., et al. “Evaluating efficacy and safety of the topical silicone gel containing onion extract in the treatment of post-cesarean surgical scars”. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology7 (2022): 2908-2915.
19. Cromi A., et al. “Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1 (2010): 36.e1-8.
20. Huppelschoten AG., et al. “Different ways of subcutaneous tissue and skin closure at cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial on the long-term cosmetic outcome”. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 8 (2013): 916-924.
21. de Graaf IM., et al. “Techniques for wound closure at caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial”. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1 (2012): 47-52.
22. Singer AJ., et al. “Closure of lacerations and incisions with octylcyanoacrylate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial”. Surgery3 (2002): 270-276.