Sutureless Electrocautery-Assisted Excision of a Recurrent Giant Earlobe Keloid Following Piercing: A Case Report

Dian Andriani Ratna Dewi; Juliandra Firdaus; Khufitha Tasya

doi:10.47353/ajmpm.v3i1.45

Authors

Dian Andriani Ratna Dewi defense university of the republic of indonesia
Juliandra Firdaus Faculty of Medicine, YARSI University, Central Jakarta, Indonesia
Khufitha Tasya Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Kristen Indonesia, East Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47353/ajmpm.v3i1.45

Keywords:

auricular keloid, electrocautery, earlobe keloid, secondary intention healing, sutureless excision

Abstract

Background: Auricular keloids represent challenging fibroproliferative scars frequently induced by ear piercing and are characterized by a high recurrence rate, especially following repeated surgical interventions. In cases of recurrent earlobe keloids, minimizing further trauma and wound tension is critical to reducing the likelihood of subsequent recurrence.

Case illustration: A 22-year-old woman presented with a recurrent, giant keloid on the right earlobe subsequent to ear piercing. The lesion had progressively enlarged over a 10-year period, despite four prior surgical interventions and corticosteroid injections. Clinical examination identified a firm, raised, pinkish keloidal mass measuring 7 × 5 × 3 cm. Electrocautery-assisted excision and debulking were performed under local and tumescent anesthesia. The wound was deliberately left unsutured to prevent additional puncture trauma, foreign-body reaction, and wound-edge tension. Postoperative care included local wound management, topical antibiotic and tulle dressings, and pressure therapy, facilitating healing by secondary intention.

Discussion: Electrocautery enabled controlled tissue removal with simultaneous hemostasis and minimal manipulation of surrounding skin. Avoiding primary suturing was considered important because suture-related dermal trauma and tension may reactivate abnormal fibroblast activity in keloid-prone tissue. Combined with pressure therapy, this sutureless approach supported gradual wound remodeling.

Conclusion: Electrocautery-assisted sutureless excision, followed by secondary intention healing and pressure therapy, may serve as an alternative strategy for selected cases of recurrent giant earlobe keloids. No clinical recurrence was observed at 12-month follow-up.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D; CARE Group. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. J Med Case Rep. 2013;7:223. doi:10.1186/1752-1947-7-223.

2. Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, Aronson JK, von Schoen-Angerer T, Tugwell P, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218-235. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.026.

3. Ogawa R. Keloid and hypertrophic scars are the result of chronic inflammation in the reticular dermis. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(3):606. doi:10.3390/ijms18030606.

4. Gold MH, McGuire M, Mustoe TA, Pusic A, Sachdev M, Waibel J, et al. Updated international clinical recommendations on scar management: part 2--algorithms for scar prevention and treatment. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(8):825-831. doi:10.1111/dsu.0000000000000050.

5. Betarbet U, Blalock TW. Keloids: a review of etiology, prevention, and treatment. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2020;13(2):33-43.

6. Kim SW. Management of keloid scars: noninvasive and invasive treatments. Arch Plast Surg. 2021;48(2):149-157. doi:10.5999/aps.2020.01914.

7. Berman B, Maderal A, Raphael B. Keloids and hypertrophic scars: pathophysiology, classification, and treatment. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43 Suppl 1:S3-S18. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000000819.

8. Trace AP, Enos CW, Mantel A, Harvey VM. Keloids and hypertrophic scars: a spectrum of clinical challenges. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17(3):201-223. doi:10.1007/s40257-016-0175-7.

9. Aljodah MAA, Alfeehan MJ, Al-Zajrawee MZ. Outcome of recurrent auricular keloid treatment with a combination of surgical excision and perioperative corticosteroid injection. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9(12):e3971. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003971.

10. Lane JE, Waller JL, Davis LS. Relationship between age of ear piercing and keloid formation. Pediatrics. 2005;115(5):1312-1314. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1085.

11. Sclafani AP, Gordon L, Chadha M, Romo T 3rd. Prevention of earlobe keloid recurrence with postoperative corticosteroid injections versus radiation therapy. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22(6):569-574. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.1996.tb00376.x.

12. Gauglitz GG, Korting HC, Pavicic T, Ruzicka T, Jeschke MG. Hypertrophic scarring and keloids: pathomechanisms and current and emerging treatment strategies. Mol Med. 2011;17(1-2):113-125. doi:10.2119/molmed.2009.00153.

13. Chike-Obi CJ, Cole PD, Brissett AE. Keloids: pathogenesis, clinical features, and management. Semin Plast Surg. 2009;23(3):178-184. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1224797.

14. Mustoe TA, Cooter RD, Gold MH, Hobbs FD, Ramelet AA, Shakespeare PG, et al. International clinical recommendations on scar management. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(2):560-571. doi:10.1097/00006534-200208000-00031.

15. Walsh LA, Wu E, Pontes D, Kwan KR, Poondru S, Miller CH, et al. Keloid treatments: an evidence-based systematic review of recent advances. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):42. doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02192-7.

16. Park TH, Seo SW, Kim JK, Chang CH. Earlobe keloids: classification according to gross morphology determines proper surgical approach. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(3):406-412. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.02199.x.

17. Tahir SM, Ihebom D, Simman R. Compression therapy for keloid scars: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024;12(6):e5864. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000005864.