Calcium sulphate (CS) is a fully synthetic, sterile, bioabsorbable biomaterial extensively applied for the management of infected tissues and postoperative dead spaces resulting from surgical interventions. Residual DS may facilitate hematoma accumulation and bacterial colonisation, thereby heightening the risk of surgical‐site infections. Within orthopaedic surgery, CS has been predominantly evaluated as a bone‐void filler and an off‐label antibiotic delivery vehicle—particularly in arthroplasty revisions, chronic osteomyelitis, and open fractures—yielding high rates of infection prophylaxis, bone regeneration, and low complication profiles. Commercially available as injectable ‘pearls’ or beads, CS permits local, sustained antibiotic elution while undergoing gradual biodegradation, thus obviating the need for secondary removal procedures. Over the last decade, Calcium Sulphate beads (CSBs) have transcended orthopaedics, gaining traction across general, vascular, and endocrine surgery disciplines for the prevention and treatment of complex wound infections. However, their application in plastic and reconstructive surgery remains underreported, despite the specialty's frequent engagement with complex soft‐tissue defects, bone exposure, suture dehiscence, and trauma‐related wounds vulnerable to infection. To our knowledge, this represents the first scoping review synthesising current evidence, clinical indications, and emerging roles of CSBs within plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by recurrent nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts in apocrine gland-bearing areas. Surgery plays a key role in moderate-to-severe disease. As patients increasingly rely on the internet for decision-making, the quality of online information on HS surgery requires critical evaluation. Previous studies have shown poor quality and limited coverage of surgical aspects. This study systematically assesses publicly available websites on the surgical and reconstructive management of HS, quantifies their quality using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (mEQIP) tool, and identifies areas needing improvement to support informed decisions. Methods: Google, Bing, and Yahoo were searched using five HS surgery-related keywords. The first 50 results per keyword and engine were collected (n = 750), and 214 websites met the inclusion criteria. Sites were categorized by provenance (practitioners, hospitals, healthcare portals, professional societies, encyclopedias) and assessed using the 36-item mEQIP checklist. High quality was defined as ≥23/36 (75th percentile). Comparisons were made by publication era (pre-/post-COVID-19) and source type. Results: The mean mEQIP score was 21.7; only 51 websites (23.8%) met the high-quality threshold. No significant difference emerged between pre- and post-COVID publications. Healthcare portals scored highest (22.8), followed by practitioners (21.5) and hospital sites (21.2); professional societies (19.7) and encyclopedias (17.3) performed worst. Major deficiencies included limited discussion of surgical risks, quality-of-life outcomes, and postoperative care. Conclusions: Online resources on HS surgery are frequently incomplete and omit essential details on risks, recurrence, and reconstructive options. Surgeons should direct patients toward vetted sources, and professional societies should develop accessible, evidence-based patient guidelines.

Background: In recent years, aesthetic medicine has progressively prioritized conservative treatment volumes, subtle enhancements, and skin quality improvement over volumization. This study evaluates patient-reported psychosocial outcomes, satisfaction, and regret rates following minimally invasive aesthetic procedures using validated instruments. Methods: A review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting outcomes using validated PROMs (FACE-Q, GAIS, Decision Regret Scale, BDDQ, DCQ and COPS) with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Studies evaluating facial botulinum neurotoxins, hyaluronic acid fillers, and biostimulation treatments were included. Given the heterogeneity in study design and outcome reporting, findings were synthesized narratively with descriptive comparisons across treatment modalities. Results: Increased treatment intensity was not consistently associated with greater satisfaction, and higher dose or volume often corresponded to more dissatisfaction and regret. The evidence for this pattern was stronger for botulinum toxin and hyaluronic acid fillers; weaker for biostimulators and preliminary for post-GLP-1 facial changes. Conservative approaches were associated with favorable PROMs, and unrealistic expectations, body dysmorphic disorder, and insufficient pre-treatment counseling were the principal predictors of poor outcomes. Conclusions: Patient satisfaction was not proportional to treatment intensity, particularly when results were perceived as unnatural or overcorrected. This relationship appears associative rather than causal, as patients receiving more intense treatment may differ in expectations, history, and psychological profile. A PROM-driven, patient-tailored approach seems more likely to produce durable satisfaction and minimize regret.