Purpose: This research aimed to explore factors associated with patient-reported breast and abdominal scar quality after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction (BR). Material and Methods: This study was designed as a descriptive cross-sectional survey in which women after DIEP flap BR were invited to complete an online survey on breast and abdominal scarring. The online survey was distributed in the Netherlands in several ways in order to reach a diverse population of women. Outcomes were assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Additional items were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: A total of 248 women completed the survey. There was a statistically significant worse POSAS scar appraisal for the abdominal scar compared with the breast scar. The vast majority of women reported high scores on at least one scar characteristic of their breast scar or ab- dominal scar. Overall, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity scored higher than pain and itching. Women were only moderately positive about the size, noticeability, location, and the information provided regarding scarring. Conclusion: It is crucial to address the inevitability of scars in patient education before a DIEP flap BR, with a particular focus on the abdominal scar, as women experience abdominal scars significantly worse than their breast scars. Providing more information on the experience of other women and the expected appearance will contribute to having realistic expectations while allowing them to make well-informed decisions.
DOCUMENT
For deep partial-thickness burns no consensus on the optimal treatment has been reached due to conflicting study outcomes with low quality evidence. Treatment options in high- and middle-income countries include conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed; and early excision and grafting. The majority of timing of surgery studies focus on survival rather than on quality of life. This study protocol describes a study that aims to compare long-term scar quality, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes between the treatment options. A multicentre prospective study will be conducted in the three Dutch burn centres (Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen). All adult patients with acute deep-partial thickness burns, based on healing potential with Laser Doppler Imaging, are eligible for inclusion. During a nine-month baseline period, standard practice will be monitored. This includes conservative treatment with dressings and topical agents, and excision and grafting of residual defects if needed 14–21 days post-burn. The subsequent nine months, early surgery is advocated, involving excision and grafting in the first week to ten days post-burn. The primary outcome compared between the two groups is long-term scar quality assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 twelve months after discharge. Secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes like quality of life and return to work. The aim of the study is to assess long-term scar quality in deep partial-thickness burns after conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed, compared to early excision and grafting. Adding to the ongoing debate on the optimal treatment of these burns. The broad range of studied outcomes will be used for the development of a decision aid for deep partial-thickness burns, to fully inform patients at the point of consent to surgery and support optimal person-centred care.
DOCUMENT
Breast cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer that affects women worldwide, posing a significant burden on public health. While advancements in early detection and improved treatments have led to a remarkable 90% five-year survival rate and an 83% ten-year survival rate, this has also resulted in more prophylactic mastectomies being performed. Despite advancements in breast-conserving techniques, immunotherapy, and hormone therapy, many women still undergo mastectomies as part of their cancer treatment. In all cases, this results in scarring, and additional side effects from treatment modalities may arise. The loss of a breast can profoundly impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although HRQoL has improved greatly during the recent years, systematic and local therapy having side effects is not uncommon, and this needs more attention.
DOCUMENT
Background: Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction leads to large scars in the breast and abdominal region. Common symptoms related to abdominal scarring include changes in color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity of the skin. The aim of this study was to examine whether microneedling improves the abdominal scar quality after DIEP-flap breast reconstruction. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled within subject comparison design (N = 30) was used to study the effect of microneedling treatments on the abdominal scar, versus no treatment. Three electrically powered microneedling sessions were performed every 4 weeks on one side of the abdominal scar. Abdominal scar assessment was performed at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Treated and untreated sides were compared using a t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test in case the data were not normally distributed. Results: Twenty-seven women completed the study. Microneedling treatment led to lower POSAS scores compared with the untreated scar side after the 3- and 9-month follow-up. At the 9-month follow-up, the POSAS total score (Mdn = 17, interquartile range = 18.3 versus Mdn = 21.4, interquartile range = 17.5) was statistically lower for the treated side compared with the untreated side, implying a better-appraised scar quality. The observer POSAS total score was statistically lower for the treated side compared with the untreated side. Conclusions: Based on patient and observer ratings, overall abdominal scars after DIEP-flap surgery improve significantly after microneedling treatment. Scar symptoms reduce faster under the influence of microneedling treatment compared with no treatment.
LINK
Scar formation is an important adverse consequence of burns. How patients appraise their scar quality is often studied shortly after sustaining the injury, but information in the long-term is scarce. Our aim was, therefore, to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of burn scars. Adults with a burn center admission of ≥1 day between August 2011 and September 2012 were invited to complete a questionnaire on long-term consequences of burns. We enriched this sample with patients with severe burns (>20% total body surface area [TBSA] burned or TBSA full thickness >5%) treated between January 2010 and March 2013. Self-reported scar quality was assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Patients completed this scale for their—in their opinion—most severe scar ≥5 years after burns. This study included 251 patients with a mean %TBSA burned of 10%. The vast majority (91.4%) reported at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and 78.9% of the patients’ overall opinion was that their scar deviated from normal skin. Patients with severe burns had higher POSAS scores, representing worse scar quality, than patients with mild/intermediate burns, except for color, which was high in both groups. A longer hospital stay predicted reduced scar quality (both mean POSAS and mean overall opinion of the scar) in multivariate analyses. In addition, female gender was also associated with a poorer overall opinion of the scar. In conclusion, this study provides new insights in long-term scar quality. Scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the burn population more than 5 years after burns, especially in those with severe burns. Female gender is associated with a poorer patients’ overall opinion of their scar, which may be an indication of gender differences in perception of scar quality after burns.
DOCUMENT
Background: Burn scar maturation can take several years but is generally studied shortly after injury. Therefore, we investigated patient-reported scar quality up to 5–7 years post-burn. Methods: Patients with ≤ 20 % total body surface area burned completed the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS 2.0) on the same scar at 3, > 18 months (median 28 months) and 5–7 years (median 63 months) post-burn. Results: Fifty-eight patients (21 children; 37 adults) with a median total body surface area burned (TBSA) of 6.3 % participated. Average patient-reported scar quality (POSAS score) was generally worst at 3 months (median score: 4.2), best at 28 months (median score: 2.2) and intermediate at 63 months post-burn (median score: 3.4) (p < 0.001). Many patients (66 %) reported a median 1.8 point higher (worse) POSAS score at 63 months compared to 28 months post-burn, whereas 14 % reported an identical, and 21 % a lower (better) score. At any assessment, largest differences with normal skin were reported for scar colour. Univariate predictive factors of long-term patient-reported scar quality were scar quality at 3 months (p = 0.002) and 28 months post-burn (p < 0.001), full-thickness burn size (p = 0.033), length of hospital stay (p = 0.003), and number of surgeries (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Two-thirds of patients with burns up to 20 % TBSA scored the quality of their scars worse at 63 months compared to 28 months post-burn. Whether this corresponds to increased dissatisfaction with scars in the long term should be further investigated. These new insights add to the body of knowledge on scar maturation and underscores the importance of discussing patients’ expectations.
DOCUMENT
Background: Tangential excision of burned tissue followed by skin grafting is the cornerstone of burn surgery. Hydrosurgery has become popular for tangential excision, with the hypothesis that enhanced preservation of vital dermal tissue reduces scarring. The aim of this trial was to compare scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement before split-skin grafting. Methods: A double-blind randomized within-patient multicentre controlled trial was conducted in patients with burns that required split-skin grafting. One wound area was randomized to hydrosurgical debridement and the other to Weck knife debridement. The primary outcome was scar quality at 12 months, assessed with the observer part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Secondary outcomes included complications, scar quality, colour, pliability, and histological dermal preservation. Results: Some 137 patients were randomized. At 12 months, scars of the hydrosurgical debrided wounds had a lower POSAS observer total item score (mean 2.42 (95 per cent c.i. 2.26 to 2.59) versus 2.54 (95 per cent c.i. 2.36 to 2.72; P = 0.023)) and overall opinion score (mean 3.08 (95 per cent c.i. 2.88 to 3.28) versus 3.30 (95 per cent c.i. 3.09-3.51); P = 0.006). Patient-reported scar quality and pliability measurements were significantly better for the hydrosurgically debrided wounds. Complication rates did not differ between both treatments. Histologically, significantly more dermis was preserved with hydrosurgery (P < 0.001). Conclusion: One year after surgery scar quality and pliability was better for hydrosurgically debrided burns, probably owing to enhanced histological preservation of dermis. Registration number: Trial NL6085 (NTR6232 (http://www.trialregister.nl)).
DOCUMENT
Standard treatment for large burns is transplantation with meshed split skin autografts (SSGs). A disadvantage of this treatment is that healing is accompanied by scar formation. Application of autologous epidermal cells (keratinocytes and melanocytes) may be a suitable therapeutic alternative, since this may enhance wound closure and improve scar quality. A prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed in 40 adult patients with acute full thickness burns. On two comparable wound areas, conventional treatment with SSGs was compared to an experimental treatment consisting of SSGs in combination with cultured autologous epidermal cells (ECs) seeded in a collagen carrier. The primary outcome measure was wound closure after 5-7 days. Secondary outcomes were safety aspects and scar quality measured by graft take, scar score (POSAS), skin colorimeter (DermaSpectrometer) and elasticity (Cutometer). Wound epithelialization after 5-7 days was significantly better for the experimental treatment (71%) compared to the standard treatment (67%) (p = 0.034, Wilcoxon), whereas the take rates of the grafts were similar. No related adverse events were recorded. Scar quality was evaluated at 3 (n = 33) and 12 (n = 28) months. The POSAS of the observer after 3 and 12 months and of the patient after 12 months were significantly better for the experimental area. Improvements between 12% and 23% (p ≤ 0.010, Wilcoxon) were detected for redness, pigmentation, thickness, relief, and pliability. Melanin index at 3 and 12 months and erythema index at 12 months were closer to normal skin for the experimental treatment than for conventional treatment (p ≤ 0.025 paired samples t-test). Skin elasticity showed significantly higher elasticity (p = 0.030) in the experimental area at 3 months follow-up. We showed a safe application and significant improvements of wound healing and scar quality in burn patients after treatment with ECs versus SSGs only. The relevance of cultured autologous cells in treatment of extensive burns is supported by our current findings.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: In the last decades, autologous fat grafting has been used to treat adherent dermal scars. The observed regenerative and scar-reducing properties have been mainly ascribed to the tissue-derived stromal vascular fraction (tSVF) in adipose tissue. Adipose tissue's components augment local angiogenesis and mitosis in resident tissue cells. Moreover, it promotes collagen remodeling. We hypothesize that tSVF potentiates fat grafting-based treatment of adherent scars. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effect of tSVF-enriched fat grafting on scar pliability over a 12-month period.METHODS AND DESIGN: A clinical multicenter non-randomized early phase trial will be conducted in two dedicated Dutch Burn Centers (Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, and Martini Hospital, Groningen). After informed consent, 46 patients (≥18 years) with adherent scars caused by burns, necrotic fasciitis, or degloving injury who have an indication for fat grafting will receive a sub-cicatricic tSVF-enriched fat graft. The primary outcome is the change in scar pliability measured by the Cutometer between pre- and 12 months post-grafting. Secondary outcomes are scar pliability (after 3 months), scar erythema, and melanin measured by the DSM II Colormeter; scar quality assessed by the patient and observer scales of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 2.0; and histological analysis of scar biopsies (voluntary) and tSVF quality and composition. This study has been approved by the Dutch Central Committee for Clinical Research (CCMO), NL72094.000.20.CONCLUSION: This study will test the clinical efficacy of tSVF-enriched fat grafting to treat dermal scars while the underlying working mechanism will be probed into too.
DOCUMENT
