ABSTRACT Scar outcomes are traditionally evaluated at 12 months post‐surgery, yet early prediction of long‐term scar characteristics may facilitate timely interventions, enhance treatment strategies, shorten clinical trial durations, and improve patient outcomes. This study evaluates whether 3‐month scar assessments reliably predict 12‐month outcomes using validated scar assessment scales and interrater reliability measures. Two surgeons evaluated a prospective cohort of 40 surgical patients using standardised scar assessment tools. Logistic regression assessed the predictive value of 3‐month classifications for 12‐month binary outcomes (‘good’ vs. ‘poor’ scar quality), while linear regression evaluated continuous scar scores. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values quantified predictive accuracy. Scars classified as ‘good’ at 3 months were significantly more likely to remain ‘good’ at 12 months ( p < 0.001), with strong predictive performance (AUC = 0.763). Linear regression demonstrated significant predictive accuracy for width, height, and overall opinion. However, vascularity predictions were weak, and depth was not significantly associated with long‐term outcomes. Interrater reliability was moderate to good across measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients values ranging from 0.215 (depth) to 0.714 (width), and Cohen's Kappa for binary scar classifications of 0.505 ( p < 0.001). Early 3‐month scar assessments reliably predict 12‐month outcomes for width, height, and overall opinion, while vascularity and depth remain less predictable. Scars rated as ‘good’ at 3 months are unlikely to worsen, while ‘poor’ scars rarely improve without intervention. These findings highlight the utility of early scar evaluations in guiding postoperative management and patient counselling.
Li et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: