Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients

Bettina Müller; Edoardo Mazza; Clemens Schiestl; Julia Elrod

doi:10.1093/burnst/tkab028

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients

更新时间：2022-06-14

- Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients
- Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients
- Burns & Trauma 2021年9卷第1期
- 作者机构：
  
  1. Institute for Mechanical Systems
  2. Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology
  3. Burn Center
  4. Children's Research Center (CRC)
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  This project was supported by grants from the Helmut Horten Foundation.
- DOI：10.1093/burnst/tkab028
  中图分类号：
- 纸质出版日期：2021，
  
  网络出版日期：2021-9-30，
扫描看全文
Bettina Müller, Edoardo Mazza, Clemens Schiestl, 等. Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients[J]. Burns & Trauma, 2021,9(1).

Bettina Müller, Edoardo Mazza, Clemens Schiestl, Julia Elrod, Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients, Burns & Trauma, Volume 9, 2021, tkab028, https://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkab028
Bettina Müller, Edoardo Mazza, Clemens Schiestl, 等. Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients[J]. Burns & Trauma, 2021,9(1). DOI： 10.1093/burnst/tkab028.

Bettina Müller, Edoardo Mazza, Clemens Schiestl, Julia Elrod, Longitudinal monitoring and prediction of long-term outcome of scar stiffness on pediatric patients, Burns & Trauma, Volume 9, 2021, tkab028, https://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkab028 DOI：

摘要

Abstract

BackgroundHypertrophic scarring after burn injury is one of the greatest unmet challenges in patients with burn injuries. A better understanding of the characteristics of scar maturation and early prediction of the long-term outcome of scarring are prerequisites for improving targeted therapies and pivotal for patient counselling.MethodsRepeated measurements of scar stiffness in 11 pediatric patients were performed over the course of 1 year using 2 suction devices

the Cutometer and the Nimble. In addition

the observer pliability score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was applied. This longitudinal study allowed quantification of the ability of each of the measured parameters to reflect scar maturation

as indicated by change in skin pliability/stiffness

over time (using linear regression); the ability to distinguish individual patients (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)); the correlation of the devices (Spearman correlation coefficient); and the ability to predict long-term scar maturation based on early scar assessment (using receiver operating characteristic).ResultsAll the tools used showed significant longitudinal decrease of scar stiffness from 3 months until 12 months after the injury. The Nimble (ICCpatientNimble = 0.99) and the Cutometer (ICCpatientCuto = 0.97) demonstrated an excellent ability to distinguish between individual patients. The Nimble seemed to be able to predict the 12-month pliability of scars based on early (3-month) measurements (area under the curve (AUC)12mPOSAS = 0.67; AUC12mC = 0.46; AUC12mN = 0.79).ConclusionsThe results of this preliminary study suggest that all 3 tools provide suitable means to quantify alterations in scar stiffness over time. Initial evidence suggests the Nimble is most favorable for predicting changes in stiffness associated with long-term scar maturation. Further studies with a larger sample size are required to validate tissue suction as a clinical tool for analysis of changes of scar stiffness over time.

关键词

Keywords

Pediatric burnsScar maturationPOSASCutometerNimble

references

1. Finnerty C, Jeschke M, Branski L, Barret J, Dziewulski P, Herndon D. Hypertrophic scarring: the greatest unmet challenge after burn injury. Lancet. 2016;388:1427–36.

2.Cubison TCS, Pape SA, Parkhouse N. Evidence for the link between healing time and the development of hypertrophic scars (HTS) in paediatric burns due to scald injury. Burns. 2006;32:992–9.

3.Bock O, Schmid-Ott G, Malewski P, Mrowietz U. Quality of life of patients with keloid and hypertrophic scarring. Arch Dermatol Res. 2006;297:433–8.

4.Ogilvie MP, Panthaki ZJ. Burns of the developing breast. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19:1030–3.

5.Moi AL, Wentzel-Larsen T, Salemark L, Hanestad BR. Long-term risk factors for impaired burn-specific health and unemployment in patients with thermal injury. Burns. 2007;33:37–45.

6.Sorkin M, Cholok D, Levi B. Scar management of the burned hand. Hand Clin. 2017;33:305–15.

7.Parry I, Sen S, Palmieri T, Greenhalgh D. Nonsurgical scar management of the face: does early versus late intervention affect outcome? J Burn Care Res. 2013;34:569–75.

8.Zhang X, Liu Y, Deng X, Deng C, Pan Y, Hu A. The correlation between quality of life and acceptability of disability in patients with facial burn scars. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:329. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00329.

9.Cho YS, Jeon JH, Hong A, Yang HT, Yim H, Cho YS, et al. The effect of burn rehabilitation massage therapy on hypertrophic scar after burn: a randomized controlled trial. Burns. 2014;40:1513–20.

10.Willyard C. Unlocking the secrets of scar-free skin healing. Nature. 2018;563:86–8.

11.Kant S, Van Den Kerckhove E, Colla C, Van Der Hulst R, De Grzymala AP. Duration of scar maturation: retrospective analyses of 361 hypertrophic scars over 5 years. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2019;32:26–34.

12.Thompson CM, Hocking AM, Honari S, Muffley LA, Ga M, Gibran NS. Genetic risk factors for hypertrophic scar development. J Burn Care Res. 2013;34:477–82.

13.Wallace HJ, Fear MW, Crowe MM, Martin LJ, Wood FM. Identification of factors predicting scar outcome after burn injury in children: a prospective case-control study. Burn Trauma. 2017;5:1–13.

14.Gauglitz GG, Korting HC, Pavicic T, Ruzicka T, Jeschke MG. Hypertrophic scarring and keloids: pathomechanisms and current and emerging treatment strategies. Mol Med. 2011;17:113–25.

15.O’Brien L, Jones DJ. Silicone gel sheeting for preventing and treating hypertrophic and keloid scars. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003826.pub3.

16.Bond JS, Duncan JAL, Sattar A, Boanas A, Mason T, O'Kane S, et al. Maturation of the human scar: an observational study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1650–8.

17.Van Der Wal MBA, Vloemans JFPM, Tuinebreijer WE, Van De Ven P, Van Unen E, Van Zuijlen PPM et al. Outcome after burns: an observational study on burn scar maturation and predictors for severe scarring. Wound Repair Regen. 2012;20:676–87.

18.Schwanholt CA, Ridgway CL, Greenhalgh DG, Staley MJ, Gaboury TJ, Morress CS et al. A prospective study of burn scar maturation in pediatrics: does age matter? J Burn Care Rehabil. 1994;15:416–20.

19.Van Zuijlen PPM, Vloemans JFPM, Van Trier AJM, Suijker MH, Van Unen E, Groenevelt F et al. Dermal substitution in acute burns and reconstructive surgery: a subjective and objective long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1938–46.

20.Fong SSL, Hung LK, Cheng JCY. The cutometer and ultrasonography in the assessment of postburn hypertrophic scar: a preliminary study. Burns. 1997;23:12–8.

21.Monteiro Rodrigues L, Fluhr JW, EEMCO Group. Guidance for the in vivo assessment of biomechanical properties of the human skin and its annexes: revisiting instrumentation and test modes. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2020;33:44–60.

22.Sutradhar A, Miller MJ. In vivo measurement of breast skin elasticity and breast skin thickness. Skin Res Technol. 2013;19:e191–9.

23.Peperkamp K, Verhulst AC, Tielemans HJP, Winters H, van Dalen D, Ulrich DJO. The inter-rater and test-retest reliability of skin thickness and skin elasticity measurements by the DermaLab Combo in healthy participants. Skin Res Technol. 2019;25:787–92.

24.Sadowski G, Sadowski J. Safety and efficacy of a novel antiaging skin care regimen containing neutraceuticals and growth factors on the facial skin of women: a 12-week open-label study. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2020;13:24–34.

25.Anthonissen M, Daly D, Fieuws S, Massage P, Van Brussel M, Vranckx J, et al. Measurement of elasticity and transepidermal water loss rate of burn scars with the Dermalab®. Burns. 2013;39:420–8.

26.Gankande TU, Duke JM, Danielsen PL, DeJong HM, Wood FM, Wallace HJ. Reliability of scar assessments performed with an integrated skin testing device – the DermaLab Combo®. Burns. 2014;40:1521–9.

27.Nguyen N-TA, Roberge D, Freeman CR, Wong C, Hines J, Turcotte RE. Skin elasticity as a measure of radiation fibrosis: is it reproducible and does it correlate with patient and physician-reported measures? Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2014;13:469–76.

28.Ohshima H, Kinoshita S, Oyobikawa M, Futagawa M, Takiwaki H, Ishiko A, et al. Use of Cutometer area parameters in evaluating age-related changes in the skin elasticity of the cheek. Skin Res Technol. 2013;19:e238–42.

29.Truchuelo MT, Vitale M. A cosmetic treatment based on the secretion of Cryptomphalus aspersa 40% improves the clinical results after the use of nonablative fractional laser in skin aging. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19:622–8.

30.Draaijers LJ, Botman YAM, Tempelman FRH, Kreis RW, Middelkoop E, Van Zuijlen PPM. Skin elasticity meter or subjective evaluation in scars: a reliability assessment. Burns. 2004;30:109–14.

31.Verhaegen PDHM, Van Der Wal MBA, Middelkoop E, Van Zuijlen PPM. Objective scar assessment tools: a clinimetric appraisal. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1561–70.

32.Dobrev HP. In vivo study of skin mechanical properties in patients with systemic sclerosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40:436–42.

33.Enomoto DN, Mekkes JR, Bossuyt PM, Hoekzema R, Bos JD. Quantification of cutaneous sclerosis with a skin elasticity meter in patients with generalized scleroderma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;35:381–7.

34.Bonaparte JP, Ellis D, Chung J. The effect of probe to skin contact force on Cutometer MPA 580 measurements. J Med Eng Technol. 2013;37:208–12.

35.Müller B, Elrod J, Distler O, Schiestl C, Mazza E. On the reliability of suction measurements for skin characterization. J Biomech Eng. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4047661.

36.Müller B, Elrod J, Pensalfini M, Hopf R, Distler O, Schiestl C, et al. A novel ultra-light suction device for mechanical characterization of skin. In: Jan Y-K (ed). PLoS One. 2018;13:e0201440.

37.Elrod J, Müller B, Mohr C, Meuli M, Mazza E, Schiestl C. An effective procedure for skin stiffness measurement to improve paediatric burn care. Burns. 2019;45:1102–11.

38.Müller B, Ruby L, Jordan S, Rominger MB, Mazza E, Distler O. Validation of the suction device nimble for the assessment of skin fibrosis in systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:128. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02214-y.

39.Courage + Khazaka electronic GmbH, Available at: https://www.courage-khazaka.de/index.php/en/component/content/article/59-english/products/scientific/142-visiometer. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

40.Pensalfini M, Weickenmeier J, Rominger M, Santoprete R, Distler O, Mazza E. Location-specific mechanical response and morphology of facial soft tissues. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;78:108–15.

41.Jaspers MEH, et al. Effectiveness of autologous fat grafting in adherent scars: results obtained by a comprehensive scar evaluation protocol. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:212–9.

42.Van De Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, Draaijers LJ, Van Der Horst CMAM, Van Zuijlen PPM. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:514–22.

43.Van Der Wal MBA, Tuinebreijer WE, Bloemen MCT, Verhaegen PDHM, Middelkoop E, Van Zuijlen PPM. Rasch analysis of the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) in burn scars. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:13–23.

44.Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1960–5.

45.Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6:284–90.

46.Taylor R. Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagnostic Med Sonogr. 1990;129:902–6.

47.Oliveira GV, Chinkes D, Mitchell C, Oliveras G, Hawkins HK, Herndon DN. Objective assessment of burn scar vascularity, erythema, pliability, thickness, and planimetry. Dermatologic Surg. 2005;31:48–58.

48.Goei H, van der Vlies CH, Tuinebreijer WE, van Zuijlen PPM, Middelkoop E, van Baar ME. Predictive validity of short term scar quality on final burn scar outcome using the patient and observer scar assessment scale in patients with minor to moderate burn severity. Burns. 2017;43:715–23.

49.Georges L. Constitutive modelling of skin mechanics. Ski Biophys. 2019;19–76. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13279-8_2.

50.Nicholas RS, Falvey H, Lemonas P, Damodaran G, Ghannem A, Selim F, et al. Patient-related keloid scar assessment and outcome measures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:648–56.

51.Hoogewerf CJ, Van Baar ME, Middelkoop E, Van Loey NE. Patient reported facial scar assessment: directions for the professional. Burns. 2014;40:347–53.

52.Zhang J, Miller CJ, O’Malley V, Bowman EB, Etzkorn JR, Shin TM, et al. Patient and physician assessment of surgical scars a systematic review. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018;20:314–23.

53.Brown BC, Moss TP, McGrouther DA, Bayat A. Skin scar preconceptions must be challenged: importance of self-perception in skin scarring. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63:1022–9.

54.Spronk I, Polinder S, Haagsma J, Nieuwenhuis M, Pijpe A, van der Vlies C, et al. Patient-reported scar quality of adults after burn injuries: a five-year multicenter follow-up study. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27:409–14.

查看原文

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

暂无数据