Peter Moortgat1, Jill Meirte1, Koen Maertens1, Cynthia Lafaire1, Lieve De Cuyper1, Mieke Anthonissen1. 1. From OSCARE, the Organisation for Burns, Scar After-Care and Research, the Burn Center, ZNA Stuivenberg; the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Antwerp; the Department of Clinical and Lifespan Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel; the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven; and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation & Burns Center, UZ Leuven.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of topical silicone to treat scars is widespread, and various studies have demonstrated its efficacy to treat scars. A new form of silicone application is a cohesive elastic bandage. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of this bandage versus an adhesive silicone gel sheet on scar elasticityafter burn injury. METHODS: A total of 60 patients were enrolled in a randomized, prospective, single-blind, single-center, comparative, parallel-group study. The participants were assigned randomly to one of two treatment arms: one for treatment with a cohesive silicone bandage, and the other with a silicone gel sheet. The color was measured objectively using a Chromameter, and the Cutometer was used to assess vertical elasticity. For subjective assessment of the scars, the authors used the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. RESULTS: The results reveal that there were no significant differences between the two interventions for most subjective assessments and color measurements. However, the group that received treatment with the cohesive silicone bandage did seem to perform statistically significantly better than the silicone gel sheet group for vertical elasticity and the global score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (observer scale). This was probably because of the unique microstructure of the bandage that ensured a standardized pressure together with uninterrupted contact with the skin. CONCLUSIONS: An elastic cohesive silicone bandage seems to outperform silicone gel sheets for vertical elasticity when treating hypertrophic burn scars. The authors recommend including timing of application and duration of application in future studies. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The use of topical silicone to treat scars is widespread, and various studies have demonstrated its efficacy to treat scars. A new form of silicone application is a cohesive elastic bandage. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of this bandage versus an adhesive silicone gel sheet on scar elasticity after burn injury. METHODS: A total of 60 patients were enrolled in a randomized, prospective, single-blind, single-center, comparative, parallel-group study. The participants were assigned randomly to one of two treatment arms: one for treatment with a cohesive silicone bandage, and the other with a silicone gel sheet. The color was measured objectively using a Chromameter, and the Cutometer was used to assess vertical elasticity. For subjective assessment of the scars, the authors used the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. RESULTS: The results reveal that there were no significant differences between the two interventions for most subjective assessments and color measurements. However, the group that received treatment with the cohesive silicone bandage did seem to perform statistically significantly better than the silicone gel sheet group for vertical elasticity and the global score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (observer scale). This was probably because of the unique microstructure of the bandage that ensured a standardized pressure together with uninterrupted contact with the skin. CONCLUSIONS: An elastic cohesive silicone bandage seems to outperform silicone gel sheets for vertical elasticity when treating hypertrophic burn scars. The authors recommend including timing of application and duration of application in future studies. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
Authors: Sebastian P Nischwitz; Katharina Rauch; Hanna Luze; Elisabeth Hofmann; Alexander Draschl; Petra Kotzbeck; Lars-Peter Kamolz Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 3.617