Literature DB >> 20223947

Validation of a new device to measure postsurgical scar adherence.

Giorgio Ferriero1, Stefano Vercelli, Ludovit Salgovic, Valeria Stissi, Francesco Sartorio.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Scarring after surgery can lead to a wide range of disorders. At present, the degree of scar adhesion is assessed manually and by ordinal scales. This article describes a new device (the Adheremeter) to measure scar adhesion and assesses its validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change.
DESIGN: This was a reliability and validity study.
SETTING: The study was conducted at the Scientific Institute of Veruno. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Two independent raters, a physical therapist and a physical therapist student, used the Adheremeter to measure scar mobility and contralateral normal skin in a sample of 25 patients with adherent postsurgical scars before (T1) and after (T2) physical therapy. Two indexes of scar mobility, the adherence's surface mobility index (SM(A)) and the adherence severity index (AS), were calculated. Their correlation with the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and its pliability subscale (PL-VSS) was assessed for the validity analysis.
RESULTS: Both the SM(A) and the AS showed good-to-excellent intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.96) and interrater reliability (SM(A): ICC=.97 and .99; AS: ICC=.87 and .87, respectively, at T1 and T2), correlated moderately with the VSS and PL-VSS only at T1 (r(s)=-.58 to -.66), and were able to detect changes (physical therapist/physical therapist student): z score=-4.09/-3.88 for the SM(A) and -4.32/-4.24 for the AS; effect size=0.6/0.4 for the SM(A) and 1.4/1.2 for the AS; standard error of measurement=4.59/4.79 mm(2) for the SM(A) and 0.05/0.06 for the AS; and minimum detectable change=12.68/13.23 mm(2) for the SM(A) and 0.14/0.17 for the AS. LIMITATIONS: The measurement is based on the rater's evaluation of force to stretch the skin and on the patient's judgment of comfort. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION: The Adheremeter showed a good level of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in larger cohorts and to assess the device's validity for other types of scars.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20223947     DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20090048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  5 in total

1.  Cross-cultural adaptation, reproducibility and validation of the Italian version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS).

Authors:  Stefano Vercelli; Giorgio Ferriero; Elisabetta Bravini; Valeria Stissi; Matteo Ciceri; Sara Rossetti; Sara Bianchi; Francesco Sartorio
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-08-06       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Effects of photobiomodulation on re-epithelialization of burn wound: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Silvana Cristina de Araújo Pereira Venceslau; Júlia Lacet Silva Ferreira; Renata Maria Freire Barros; Ronny Marcos de Morais; Heleodório Honorato Dos Santos; Valéria Mayaly Alves de Oliveira; Palloma Rodrigues de Andrade
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 2.728

3.  Kinesio taping to address post-sternotomy scars in pediatric patients: A case report.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Harvey
Journal:  Scars Burn Heal       Date:  2022-05-11

4.  Increased burn healing time is associated with higher Vancouver Scar Scale score.

Authors:  Vidya Finlay; Sally Burrows; Maddison Burmaz; Hussna Yawary; Johanna Lee; Dale W Edgar; Fiona M Wood
Journal:  Scars Burn Heal       Date:  2017-03-14

Review 5.  A systematic review of objective burn scar measurements.

Authors:  Kwang Chear Lee; Janine Dretzke; Liam Grover; Ann Logan; Naiem Moiemen
Journal:  Burns Trauma       Date:  2016-04-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.