Research into the pathophysiology and treatment of hypertrophic scar (HSc) remains limited by the heterogeneity of scar and the imprecision with which its severity is measured. The objective of this study was to test the interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the Cutometer measurement of elasticity, the Mexameter measurement of erythema and pigmentation, and total thickness measure of the DermaScan C relative to the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) in patient-matched normal skin, normal scar, and HSc. Three independent investigators evaluated 128 sites (severe HSc, moderate or mild HSc, donor site, and normal skin) on 32 burn survivors using all of the above measurement tools. The intraclass correlation coefficient, which was used to measure interrater reliability, reflects the inherent amount of error in the measure and is considered acceptable when it is >0.75. Interrater reliability of the totals of the height, pliability, and vascularity subscales of the mVSS fell below the acceptable limit ( congruent with0.50). The individual subscales of the mVSS fell well below the acceptable level (< or =0.3). The Cutometer reading of elasticity provided acceptable reliability (>0.89) for each study site with the exception of severe scar. Mexameter and DermaScan C reliability measurements were acceptable for all sites (>0.82). Concurrent validity correlations with the mVSS were significant except for the comparison of the mVSS pliability subscale and the Cutometer maximum deformation measure comparison in severe scar. In conclusion, the Mexameter and DermaScan C measurements of scar color and thickness of all sites, as well as the Cutometer measurement of elasticity in all but the most severe scars shows high interrater reliability. Their significant concurrent validity with the mVSS confirms that these tools are measuring the same traits as the mVSS, and in a more objective way.

The comparison of scar evaluation over time requires measurement tools with acceptable intrarater reliability and the ability to discriminate skin characteristics of interest. The objective of this study was to evaluate the intrarater reliability and sensitivity and specificity of the Cutometer, the Mexameter, and the DermaScan C relative to the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) in patient-matched normal skin, normal scar (donor sites), and hypertrophic scar (HSc). A single investigator evaluated four tissue types (severe HSc, less severe HSc, donor site, and normal skin) in 30 burn survivors with all four measurement tools. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the Cutometer was acceptable (> or =0.75) for the maximum deformation measure for the donor site and normal skin (>0.78) but was below the acceptable range for the HSc sites and all other parameters. The ICC for the Mexameter erythema (>0.75) and melanin index (>0.89) and the DermaScan C total thickness measurement (>0.82) were acceptable for all sites. The ICC for the total of the height, pliability, and vascularity subscales of the mVSS was acceptable (0.81) for normal scar but below the acceptable range for the scar sites. The DermaScan C was clearly able to discriminate HSc from normal scar and normal skin based on the total thickness measure. The Cutometer was less discriminating but was still able to discriminate HSc from normal scar and normal skin. The Mexameter erythema index was not a good discriminator of HSc and normal scar. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to establish the best cutoff point for the DermaScan C total thickness and the Cutometer maximum deformation, which were 2.034 and 0.387 mm, respectively. This study showed that although the Cutometer, the DermaScan C, and the Mexameter have measurement properties that make them attractive substitutes for the mVSS, caution must be used when interpreting results since the Cutometer has a ceiling effect when measuring rigid tissue such as HSc and the Mexameter erythema index does not discriminate normal scar from HSc.

No abstract

Returning to work can be challenging for burn survivors. Approximately 28% never return to any form of employment, resulting in lower health-related quality of life. Open communication has been identified as a facilitator for return to work (RTW). To ease the RTW process and promote communication with coworkers and employers a knowledge translation (KT) intervention was developed for burn survivors. Following its implementation, the impact on the RTW process was evaluated. This study was a cross-sectional, mixed methods study where burn survivors included in the KT intervention were compared with a control group. Control group participants were selectively invited so that the two groups’ mean age, sex, and percent total body surface area burned were similar. Semistructured interviews gathered information about their RTW process and outcomes. Qualitative data were analyzed through thematic analysis and quantitative data were summarized and compared using Mann–Whitney tests. Overall, both groups were satisfied with their RTW process. Participants from the control group identified more barriers related to support received, particularly at work, and reported more psychological symptoms such as posttraumatic stress disorder, self-consciousness, and discomfort with questions. Many participants from the KT group indicated the KT intervention gave them tools and information to provide others with a better understanding of their lived experience. It is possible that the KT intervention facilitated more open communication by empowering burn survivors to explain their situation on their own, thus reducing the prevalence of social and psychological barriers by allowing them to self-advocate for more support.

No abstract