Literature DB >> 9043541

Comparison of patient satisfaction and practitioner satisfaction with wound appearance after traumatic wound repair.

A J Singer1, A L Church, K Forrestal, M Werblud, S M Valentine, J E Hollander.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Existing cosmetic scales for wounds are based only on practitioners' evaluations. They have not been validated using the patient's assessment.
OBJECTIVE: To validate a previously developed wound cosmesis scale by determining the relationship between patient and practitioner assessments of cosmetic outcome following traumatic wound repair.
METHODS: A convenience sample of patients with lacerations repaired in an ED were evaluated at the time of suture removal. Practitioners assigned 0 or 1 point each for the presence or absence of a step-off of borders; contour irregularities; margin separation; edge inversion; excessive distortion; and overall appearance. A total cosmetic score was calculated by adding the categories above. As previously defined, a score of 6 was considered optimal; < 6 was considered "suboptimal." Patients, blinded to the physician score, assessed their degrees of satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome of the wounds using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Because VAS scores were not normally distributed, practitioner scores were compared with patient satisfaction scores using a Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: 125 patients were enrolled, of whom 64% were male; the median age was 19.5 years (interquartile range = 8-33 years). Wounds were located predominantly on the face, scalp, or neck (47%) and upper extremity (35%), and had a median length of 2 cm. The 86 lacerations given optimal practitioner scores had a median patient satisfaction score of 97 mm; the 39 "suboptimal" lacerations had a median patient satisfaction score of 87 mm (p = 0.0006).
CONCLUSION: Lacerations that practitioners considered to have optimal cosmetic appearances at the time of suture removal received higher patient satisfaction scores than did lacerations considered to be suboptimal. This provides a measure of validity to this 6-item categorical cosmetic scale.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9043541     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03720.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  5 in total

Review 1.  Short and long-term cosmesis of cervical thyroidectomy scars.

Authors:  M Dordea; S R Aspinall
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Prospective randomised study to evaluate the use of DERMABOND ProPen (2-octylcyanoacrylate) in the closure of abdominal wounds versus closure with skin staples in patients undergoing elective colectomy.

Authors:  Julian Ong; Kok-Sun Ho; Min-Hoe Chew; Kong-Weng Eu
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Hybrid laparoendoscopic single-site surgery of upper urinary tract with the use of mini-laparoscopic instruments: cosmetic outcome and midterm oncological outcome.

Authors:  Panagiotis Kallidonis; Jason Kyriazis; Wissam Kamal; Francesco Porpiglia; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Absorbable or non-absorbable sutures? A prospective, randomised evaluation of aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing elective day-case hand and wrist surgery.

Authors:  R K Kundra; S Newman; A Saithna; A C Lewis; S Srinivasan; K Srinivasan
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Chitosan Gel to Treat Pressure Ulcers: A Clinical Pilot Study.

Authors:  Virginia Campani; Eliana Pagnozzi; Ilaria Mataro; Laura Mayol; Alessandra Perna; Floriana D'Urso; Antonietta Carillo; Maria Cammarota; Maria Chiara Maiuri; Giuseppe De Rosa
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 6.321

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.