Donna M Perry1, Duncan A McGrouther, Ardeshir Bayat. 1. Manchester, United Kingdom From Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research, School of Translational Medicine, Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocenter, University of Manchester, and the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Manchester Academic Health Science Center, University Hospital of South Manchester Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe Hospital.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous scarring is affected by genetic, physiologic, and biochemical factors. These produce a continuum of scar types (i.e., keloid, hypertrophic, atrophic, contracted, and fine line) that can be symptomatic, aesthetically unsatisfactory, psychologically distressing, and functionally restrictive to the affected individual. Accurate scar assessment allows for quantification of scar evolution and management, and is key to evaluating the effectiveness of applied modulating therapies and treatments. Numerous objective instruments exist for the evaluation of different scar characteristics, but no consensus has been reached as to the most appropriate device. This review aims to explore the current range of noninvasive objective assessment tools available for cutaneous skin scarring, with specific emphasis on their application to research trials and clinical practice. METHODS: An extensive search of the literature was completed to assemble comprehensive data surrounding the objective assessment of skin scars by both validation studies and clinical trials. RESULTS: A wide range of tools exist to monitor cutaneous scar physical characteristics. Primarily, there are four parameters explored by these instruments: (1) color, including pigmentation and vascularity (e.g., laser Doppler); (2) surface area (e.g., three-dimensional scanning); (3) height/depth (e.g., ultrasonography); and (4) pliability (e.g., tonometry). Many studies appraise single instruments in specific scar patient groups with subjective comparator tools. CONCLUSIONS: There is no overall valid and reliable noninvasive objective assessment tool for measurement of cutaneous skin scar characteristics. Further studies are warranted that compare multiple, parameter-specific instruments in a single-sample group and across a range of scar types.
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous scarring is affected by genetic, physiologic, and biochemical factors. These produce a continuum of scar types (i.e., keloid, hypertrophic, atrophic, contracted, and fine line) that can be symptomatic, aesthetically unsatisfactory, psychologically distressing, and functionally restrictive to the affected individual. Accurate scar assessment allows for quantification of scar evolution and management, and is key to evaluating the effectiveness of applied modulating therapies and treatments. Numerous objective instruments exist for the evaluation of different scar characteristics, but no consensus has been reached as to the most appropriate device. This review aims to explore the current range of noninvasive objective assessment tools available for cutaneous skin scarring, with specific emphasis on their application to research trials and clinical practice. METHODS: An extensive search of the literature was completed to assemble comprehensive data surrounding the objective assessment of skin scars by both validation studies and clinical trials. RESULTS: A wide range of tools exist to monitor cutaneous scar physical characteristics. Primarily, there are four parameters explored by these instruments: (1) color, including pigmentation and vascularity (e.g., laser Doppler); (2) surface area (e.g., three-dimensional scanning); (3) height/depth (e.g., ultrasonography); and (4) pliability (e.g., tonometry). Many studies appraise single instruments in specific scar patient groups with subjective comparator tools. CONCLUSIONS: There is no overall valid and reliable noninvasive objective assessment tool for measurement of cutaneous skin scar characteristics. Further studies are warranted that compare multiple, parameter-specific instruments in a single-sample group and across a range of scar types.
Authors: Brian J Smith; Nichole Nidey; Steven F Miller; Lina M Moreno Uribe; Christian L Baum; Grant S Hamilton; George L Wehby; Martine Dunnwald Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Ji Min Ha; Han Su Kim; Eun Byul Cho; Gyeong Hun Park; Eun Joo Park; Kwang Ho Kim; Lee Su Kim; Kwang Joong Kim Journal: Ann Dermatol Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 1.444