| Literature DB >> 34290886 |
Sarah O'Reilly1,2, Erin Crofton1,2, Jason Brown2, Jennifer Strong1,2, Jenny Ziviani1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tapes have been used to aid fresh wound closure. For hypertrophic scars, the use of tapes as a therapy to reduce the mechanical forces that stimulate excessive and long-term scarring is yet to be evaluated. The aim of this comprehensive review was to explore the current clinical application of tapes, as a minimally invasive option, as purposed specifically for the management of hypertrophic scarring, regardless of scar causation.Entities:
Keywords: cicatrix; review; scar; tape
Year: 2021 PMID: 34290886 PMCID: PMC8278453 DOI: 10.1177/20595131211029206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scars Burn Heal ISSN: 2059-5131
Summary of included studies.
| Author, year | Country | Study design | Participants (n) | Control group | Tape type | Procedure / Diagnosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atkinson et al., 2005 | Australia | RCT | 39 | No intervention | Paper tape | Post-caesarean |
| Daya, 2011 | South Africa | Case series | 29 patients | N/A | Micropore tape | Mixed (burn, surgical, trauma) |
| Karwacińska et al., 2012 | Poland | Case series | 54 | N/A | Kinesio tape | Burn scar |
| Kim et al., 2015 | Korea | Non-RCT | 77 | Suturing | Leukosan Skin link (tape) | Facial laceration |
| Lin et al., 2020 | Taiwan | RCT (within patient) | 47 | Silicone sheet | Steri Strip™ | Post-caesarean |
| Rosengren et al., 2013 | Australia | RCT | 136 | No intervention | Paper tape | Skin excision (torso) |
| Sawada et al., 1998 | Japan | Case series | 9 | N/A | Blenderm™ | Burn scar |
| Toscano et al., 2016 | Italy | Case series | 1 | N/A | Kinesio tape | Burn scar |
| Widgerow et al., 2009 | South Africa | RCT (within patient) | 10 patients | Paper tape + gel | Paper tape | Breast surgery |
N/A, not applicable; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Figure 1.PRISMA flow diagram. Please swap over the figures.
Critical appraisal of included studies using Downs and Black (n = 6).
| Reporting | External validity | Internal validity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ||
| Study | Hypothesis/ Aims | Outcome measures | Patient characteristics | Interventions | Distribution of confounders | Main findings | Estimation of random variability | Adverse events | Attrition | Actual probability values | Generalisable population | Subjects selected representative | Intervention representative | Blinding of subjects | Blinding of assessors | Data dredging results | Analysis adjustment for follow-up | Appropriate statistical tests | Compliance to intervention reliable | Valid reliable outcome measures | Same population | Same period of time | Randomised to intervention group | Randomised concealment | Adjustment for confounders | Attrition explained | Sufficient power calculation met | Total score X/28 |
| Atkinson et al., 2005 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | U | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 27 |
| Kim et al., 2015 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | U | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 24 |
| Lin et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | × | 23 |
| Rosengren et al., 2013 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 27 |
| Widgerow et al., 2009 | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | ✓ | U | U | ✓ | × | U | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | U | U | U | 15 |
✓, yes; ×, no; U, unable to determine.
Critical appraisal of included studies using CASP (n = 4).
| Validity | Results | Local application | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||
| Study | Address a clearly focussed issue | Acceptable cohort recruitment | Accurate exposure measurement | Accurate outcome measure | Confounding factors identified | Confounding factors accounted for | Subjects follow-up completeness | Subjects follow-up time frame | Results | Precision of results | Believability of results | Local application | Other evidence available | Study implications | Total score X/14 |
| Daya, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U | 13 |
| Karwacińska et al., 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U | 11 |
| Sawada et al., 1998 |
|
| U |
|
|
|
|
| U |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
| Toscano et al. 2016 |
|
| U | U |
|
|
|
|
| U | U | U |
|
| 7 |
✓, yes; ×, no; U, unable to determine.
Description of interventions.
| Author, year | Tape type used | Commencement time frame | Scar age | Duration of wear | Length of wear until changed | Applied by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atkinson et al., 2005 | MicroporeTM | Early | 4–6 days | 12 weeks | 3–5 days | Patient |
| Daya, 2011 | MicroporeTM | Late | 1–20 years | Different for all depending on follow-up adherence | Weekly | Patient |
| Karwacińska et al., 2012 | Kinesio tapes | Late | <1 year (n = 37) | 12 weeks | Weekly, off for 3–4 in-between applications | Patient |
| Kim et al., 2015 | Leukosan Skin Link™ tape + Steri Strips™ | Early | 0 | 10 days then Steri Strips™ for 3 months | Not reported | Patient |
| Lin et al., 2020 | Steri Strips™ | Early | 1 week | 12 weeks | Daily | Patient |
| Rosengren et al., 2013 | Leukosan Skin Link™ tape | Early | 0 | 12 weeks | Weekly | Patient |
| Sawada et al., 1998 | Blenderm™ | Late | 1 month | 4–6 months (mean = 5.2 months) | Daily | Parent/carer of patient |
| Toscano et al. 2016 | Kinesio tape | Late | 4 months | 15 months | Weekly | Therapist |
| Widgerow et al., 2009 | MicroporeTM | Early | 0 | 3–6 months | 7–10 days | Patient |
Summary of outcomes.
| Author, year | Scar type | Tape type used | Duration of wear | Incidence of irritation | Outcome measure used | Patient satisfaction details | Scar outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atkinson et al., 2005 | Linear / hypertrophic | MicroporeTM | 12 weeks | 4/34 0.12% | Ultrasound | Not reported | None of the treatment group developed HTS on completion of 12 weeks |
| Daya, 2011 | Hypertrophic / keloid | MicroporeTM | Different for all depending on follow-up adherence | 2/29 (0.006%) | Modified POSAS | Not reported | Pain reduction |
| Karwacińska et al., 2012 | Hypertrophic / keloid | Kinesio tapes | 12 weeks | Not reported | Thickness: digital calliper | Change in appearance and scar perception after 3 weeks (37 patients), | (All subjective parameters) |
| Kim et al., 2015 | Linear | Leukosan Skin Link™ tape AND Steri Strips™ | 10 days then Steri Strips™ for 3 months | 1/77 | POSAS | Taping group more satisfied on 4-point scale (3.19/4) | Both groups scored POSAS ~20/60
|
| Lin et al., 2020 | Linear | Steri Strips™ | 12 weeks | Not reported | VSS | Significantly better scar appearance than tape at 6 and 12 months, no differences between pain and itch | No statistically significant differences found at 3 and 12 months with respect to pliability, height, vascularity and pigmentation
|
| Rosengren et al., 2013 | Linear | Leukosan Skin Link™ tape | 2 weeks | 1/63 (0.015%) | Scar width, elevation, depression and colouration | Subjective scar assessment same in both groups at 6 months | Overall scar rating |
| Sawada et al., 1998 | Hypertrophic / post grafting | Blenderm™ | 4–6 months, mean = 5.2 months | Mild plaster dermatitis to surrounding normal skin, no % reported | Scar pigmentation, hardness, bulkiness, wrinkles and shrinkage | Not reported | (All subjective parameters) |
| Toscano et al., 2016 | Hypertrophic / post grafting | Kinesio tape | 7 months | No adverse effects | ROM | Good patient compliance noted | Faster change in scar colour during remodelling phase ‘ripening phase’
|
| Widgerow et al., 2009 | Linear | MicroporeTM | 3–6 months | Nil | POSAS | Not reported | Scars demonstrated borderline significance with respect to stiffness, thickness, and regularity
|
Statistically significant result.
Not statistically significant.
POSAS scores closer to 0 are deemed a more appealing scar.
HTS, hypertrophic scarring; POSAS, Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale; VAS, visual analogue scale; VSS, Vancouver Scar Scale.
Figure 2.Early application clinical guide.