Multidirectional Vector Excision Leads to Better Outcomes than Traditional Elliptical Excision of Facial Congenital Melanocytic Nevus

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Background The elliptical excision is the standard method of removing benign skin lesions, such as congenital melanocytic nevi. This technique allows for primary closure, with little to no dog-ear deformity, but may sacrifice normal tissue adjacent to the lesion, resulting in scars which are unnecessarily long. This study was designed to compare the predicted results of elliptical excision with those resulting from our excision technique.

Methods Eighty-two patients with congenital melanocytic nevus on the face were prospectively studied. Each lesion was examined and an optimal ellipse was designed and marked on the skin. After an incision on one side of the nevus margin, subcutaneous undermining was performed in the appropriate direction. The skin flap was pulled up and approximated along several vectors to minimize the occurrence of dog-ear deformity.

Results Overall, the final wound length was 21.1% shorter than that achieved by elliptical excision. Only 8.5% of the patients required dog-ear repair. There was no significant distortion of critical facial structures. All of the scars were deemed aesthetically acceptable based on their Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores.

Conclusions When compared to elliptical excision, our technique appears to minimize dogear deformity and decrease the final wound length. This technique should be considered an alternative method for excision of facial nevi.

Publication History

Received: 07 March 2013

Accepted: 04 July 2013

Article published online:
01 May 2022

© 2013. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• References

• 1 Alikhan A, Ibrahimi OA, Eisen DB. Congenital melanocytic nevi: where are we now? Part I. Clinical presentation, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histology, malignant transformation, and neurocutaneous melanosis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2012; 67: 495.e1-495.e17
  Google Scholar
• 2 Kim SW, Kim JH, Lee VH. et al. Surgical treatment of congenital melanocytic nevus in the face of the children. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 25: 1121-1126
  Google Scholar
• 3 Jo SH, Kim JW, Jung JH. et al. Serial Reconstruction Considerating the Aesthetic Unit on Congenital Giant Nevus in Periorbital Area. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 37: 465-468
  Google Scholar
• 4 Arneja JS, Gosain AK. Giant congenital melanocytic nevi. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 26e-40e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bennett RG. Fundamentals of cutaneous surgery. St. Louis: Mosby; 1988
  Google Scholar
• 6 DeHoff PH, Key JE. Application of the finite element analysis to determine forces and stresses in wound closing. J Biomech 1981; 14: 549-554
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA. et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 1960-1965
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Seo SH, Son SW, Kim IH. Round excisions lead to shorter scars and better scar positioning than traditional elliptical excisions. Dermatology 2008; 217: 276-280
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Hudson-Peacock MJ, Matthews JN, Lawrence CM. Relation between size of skin excision, wound, and specimen. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32: 1010-1015
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Weisberg NK, Nehal KS, Zide BM. Dog-ears: a review. Dermatol Surg 2000; 26: 363-370
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar