Scar revision aims to improve the esthetic appearance and functional impact of scars. However, evidence synthesizing patient-reported satisfaction following these procedures remains limited. We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar (2010-2024) for studies reporting patient satisfaction after scar revision in adults. The primary outcome was patient-reported satisfaction measured through validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or structured surveys. Secondary contextual outcomes included esthetic severity scores (patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS), observer scar assessment scale (OSAS), Vancouver scar scale (VSS)) and complication rates. Data were pooled using random-effects single-arm meta-analysis. Thirty studies involving 5230 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 8 RCTs, 5 systematic reviews (narrative only), and 17 observational studies. Surgical interventions demonstrated the most favorable POSAS scores (2.71, 95% CI 2.32-3.11), compared with non-surgical procedures (3.32, 95% CI 2.92-3.71). Across 25 studies (1432 patients), the pooled patient satisfaction rate was 78.6% (95% CI 74.3-82.8). Satisfaction was the highest among patients with traumatic scars (88.3%) and lower in those with burn scars (74.5%). Minor complications occurred in 8.6% of the patients, with higher rates in post-acne and post-surgical scars. No major complications were reported. Scar revision is associated with high patient satisfaction, with surgical approaches generally producing superior patient-reported outcomes. Satisfaction varies according to scar etiology and follow-up duration, emphasizing the importance of expectation setting and ongoing assessment. Secondary outcomes support the overall safety and effectiveness of current techniques. Standardized PROMs and improved reporting of psychosocial and contextual factors are needed to strengthen future evidence and enhance patient-centered care.

Background/Objectives: Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is a harmful complication of elective upper limb surgeries. Different strategies are employed to prevent this condition. The aim of the review is to quantify the effectiveness of various preventive interventions and investigate correlated factors that affect the incidence of UEDVT (upper extremity deep vein thrombosis). Methods: We performed a systematic search using the PubMed, EBSCO, Ovid, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective cohort studies, or case–control studies were examined. We included adult patients over 18 years old undergoing elective upper limb surgery and receiving Prophylactic measures for Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis. Results: After a literature search and quality assessment, 6 studies were included. All the studies were of good quality but significantly heterogeneous in terms of sample size, population size, treatment modalities, and baseline characteristics. In these studies, the reported incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) varied widely, ranging from 0.41% to 13%. However, thromboprophylaxis did not have a significant impact on the rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Certain factors such as older age and trauma as the cause of surgery were identified as notable risk factors for symptomatic VTE. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the complexity of preventing upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) following elective upper limb surgeries. The reported incidence of symptomatic VTE varies considerably across studies, and thromboprophylaxis was not associated with a significant reduction in its rates. The evidence is characterized by substantial heterogeneity in patient populations and surgical contexts. More research is needed to better understand the role of thromboprophylaxis in preventing DVT.

Background: A distinctive and difficult phenotype, head and neck atopic dermatitis (AD) is linked to a higher disease burden and inconsistent treatment response. The effectiveness of targeted systemic therapy in this field is currently little understood. Objectives: To evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of targeted systemic therapies for individuals’ AD affecting the head and neck, such as tralokinumab, dupilumab, and upadacitinib. Methods: A meta‐analysis and systematic review were conducted using PRISMA guidelines. In three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE), we searched for relevant research. The qualifying research included observational studies and randomized controlled trials that reported outcomes among patients with head and neck involvement. The primary findings included the head and neck Eczema Area and Severity Index (H&N EASI‐75) and the percentage change in EASI. The Numerical Rating Scale for pruritus, the Dermatology Life Quality Index for quality of life, and safety outcomes were secondary results. The meta‐analysis was conducted using a random‐effects model. Results: Twelve studies were included. The pooled H&N EASI‐75 response rate was 51% (95% CI: 40–62), with a mean percentage reduction in EASI of −72.86% (95% CI: −78.98 to −66.74). Significant improvements were observed in pruritus (mean change −4.38) and quality of life (−9.97). Across indirect, between‐study subgroup comparisons, studies of upadacitinib showed numerically greater effect estimates than studies of dupilumab or tralokinumab; in the absence of head‐to‐head trials, these comparisons are hypothesis‐generating rather than definitive. The overall prevalence of adverse events was 48%, with conjunctivitis (7%) and herpes zoster (2%) reported. Substantial heterogeneity was noted. Conclusions: Targeted systemic therapies were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in head and neck AD, although substantial heterogeneity and the indirect nature of the drug‐specific comparisons warrant cautious interpretation. Differences in efficacy and safety profiles across agents highlight the importance of individualized treatment selection, and further head‐to‐head comparative studies are warranted.