The mechanism of action of topical silicone gel sheets on hypertrophic scars is not well understood and their effect on the blood flow within hypertrophic scars has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine whether application of silicone gel sheets produced any acute effects on blood flow in hypertrophic burn scars. Perfusion of hypertrophic scars and adjacent normal skin was measured using a laser Doppler with and without application of silicone gel sheets. Continuous measurements were made for 5 minutes before gel application, for 30 minutes during gel application and for 5 minutes following gel removal. Surface temperature of the scar was continuously monitored. An occupational therapist, blinded to the perfusion level, rated each scar using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Eighteen scars and adjacent control sites in sixteen adult burn patients (11 male, 5 female; mean age: 42 +/- 14 years) were evaluated. The mean scar age was 5.4 +/- 3.7 months. The mean Vancouver Scar Scale was 5.5 +/- 2.4. Hypertrophic scars demonstrated higher perfusion measurements at baseline compared to control areas (58.5 +/- 19.3 flux units vs 25.0 +/- 8.4 flux units; P < 0.001). Application of silicone sheeting gel did not significantly alter perfusion in either the hypertrophic scar or normal tissue from the baseline measurements. However, application of silicone gel sheeting did significantly increase the mean baseline surface temperature of the hypertrophic scar from 29 +/- 0.8 degrees C to 30.7 +/- 0.6 degrees C (P < 0.001). The mechanism of action of silicone gel sheeting probably does not involve an acute alteration in blood flow within the scar. However, surface temperature of the scar increased significantly following gel application, raising the possibility that temperature alteration is involved in the mechanism of action.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether enhanced patient education increases compliance with silicone gel sheeting (SGS) on hypertrophic (HT) scars and to determine whether this results in any improvement in scar outcome. Outpatients with a HT burn scar were randomized to either a conventional education group (CEG), which received routine instruction on the use of SGS or to an enhanced education Group (EEG), which also received routine instruction, along with a detailed 5-page handout and a 26-minute videotape. The CEG (n = 12, 67% male, age 38 +/- 10 years) and the EEG (n = 13, 77% male, age 47 +/- 10 years) were followed monthly for 6 months. Subjects in the EEG wore SGS for 21.8 +/- 3.0 hr/day compared with only 10.1 +/- 7.5 hr/day of use in the CEG (P <.001). Scars in the EEG had significantly better Vancouver Scar Scale ratings for pigmentation (P =.02), height (P =.03), and pliability (P =.02) by 6 months. Patients in the EEG had significantly better subjective ratings for the parameters of scar itch (P =.01), color (P =.02), hardness (P =.01), and elevation (P =.01). Finally, scars in the EEG had significantly better ratings for border height (P =.002) and thickness (P =.01) at 6 months based on evaluation of digital photographs. Detailed multimedia patient education improves compliance with SGS and results in a better scar outcome.
It is not known whether objective measurements of burn scar quality reflect, or even bear any relationship to, the patient's opinion of their scar. The purpose of this study was to determine whether any correlation exists between the rehabilitation therapist's rating of the scar using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the patient's subjective opinion of their scar. A total of 37 scars in 20 adult patients (mean age, 34 +/- 13 years; 30% female; mean %TBSA burn, 16 +/- 11%) were evaluated at 3.1 +/- 1.9 months after injury (early assessment). Patients were asked to rate their own scar (question 1) and to rate how they perceive other people view the scar (question 2). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to score the answers to both questions. A burn occupational therapist who was blinded to the VAS scores performed a VSS rating of the scar. These evaluations were repeated 1.5 years after injury (late assessment). At the early assessment, there was no correlation between the VSS score and VAS scores for question 1 (r =.291) or question 2 (r =.371). At the late assessment, there was significant improvement in the VSS score and the VAS score for question 2. Also, a significant correlation developed between the VSS score and the VAS score for question 1 (r =.646, P =.003) but not between the VSS score and VAS score for question 2 (r =.099). The VSS measurement of the scar bears no relationship to the patient's opinion of their scar early after a burn injury. As the scar improves over time, the patient's opinion of their scar appears to improve and shows better correlation with the VSS rating. Conversely, the patient's impression of what others think of the scar continues to bear no relationship to the VSS rating, suggesting that scar acceptance by the patient is incomplete despite objective improvement in the quality of the scar. Although the VSS was never intended to measure a patient's opinion of their scar, these preliminary findings emphasize the necessity of including a patient-centered subjective component to routine scar monitoring and assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations鈥揷itations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright 漏 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 馃挋 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.