Soft tissue defects are common following trauma and tumor extirpation. These injuries can result in poor functional recovery and lead to a diminished quality of life. The healing of skin and muscle is a complex process that, at present, leads to incomplete recovery and scarring. Regenerative medicine may offer the opportunity to improve the healing process and functional outcomes. Barriers to regenerative strategies have included cost, regulatory hurdles, and the need for cell-based therapies. In recent years, exosomes, or extracellular vesicles, have gained tremendous attention in the field of soft tissue repair and regeneration. These nanosized extracellular particles (30–140 nm) can break the cellular boundaries, as well as facilitate intracellular signal delivery in various regenerative physiologic and pathologic processes. Existing studies have established the potential of exosomes in regenerating tendons, skeletal muscles, and peripheral nerves through different mechanisms, including promoting myogenesis, increasing tenocyte differentiation and enhancing neurite outgrowth, and the proliferation of Schwann cells. These exosomes can be stored for immediate use in the operating room, and can be produced cost efficiently. In this article, we critically review the current advances of exosomes in soft tissue (tendons, skeletal muscles, and peripheral nerves) healing. Additionally, new directions for clinical applications in the future will be discussed.

Across scar studies, there is a lack of dark‐skinned individuals, who have a predisposition for keloid formation, altered pigmentation and poorer quality of life (QOL). There is a need for patients of colour to be included in scar scale development and validation. In this study, we evaluate the racial diversity of patients included in the validation of scar assessment scales. A systematic review was conducted for articles reporting on the validation of a scar assessment tool. Racial, ethnic and Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) data were extracted. Fifteen scar scale validation studies were included. Nine of the studies did not mention FST, race or ethnicity of the patients. Two of the studies that reported FST or race information only included White patients or included no FST V/VI patients: mapping assessment of scars (MAPS) and University of North Carolina ‘4P’. Only four studies included non‐White patients or dark‐skinned patients in the validation of their scar scale: the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), modified Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), acne QOL and SCAR‐Q scales. The patients included in the modified VSS validation were 7% and 13% FST V/VI, 14% African in the modified POSAS and 4.5% FST V/VI in the SCAR‐Q. We highlight the severe lack of diversity in scar scale validation, with only 4 out of 15 studies including dark‐skinned patients. Given the susceptibility of darker‐skinned individuals to have poorer scarring outcomes, it is critical to include patients of colour in the very assessment tools that determine their scar prognosis. Inclusion of patients of colour in scar scale development will improve scar assessment and clinical decision‐making.