Normotrophic, hypertrophic, and keloidal scars are different types of scar formation, which all need a different approach in treatment. Therefore, it is important to differentiate between these types of scar, not only clinically but also histopathologically. Differences were explored for collagen orientation and bundle thickness in 25 normal skin, 57 normotrophic scar, 56 hypertrophic scar, and 56 keloid biopsies, which were selected on clinical diagnosis. Image analysis was performed by fast fourier transformation. The calculated collagen orientation index ranged from 0 (random orientation) to 1 (parallel orientation). The bundle distance was calculated by the average distance between the centers of the collagen bundles. The results showed that compared with all three types of scars, the collagen orientation index was significantly lower in normal skin, which indicates that scars are organized in a more parallel manner. No differences were found between the different scars. Secondly, compared with normal skin, normotrophic scar, and hypertrophic scar, the bundle distance was significantly larger in keloidal scar, which suggests that thicker collagen bundles are present in keloidal scar. This first extensive histological study showed objective differences between normal skin, normotrophic, hypertrophic, and keloidal scar.

The best results for the return of function in our rat facial nerve axotomy models occurred when the nerve ends were sutured together. At the same time, the data demonstrated a measurable neurotrophic effect when PRP was present, with the most favorable results seen with PRP added to suture. There was an improved functional outcome with the use of PRP in comparison with FS or no bioactive agents (PPP). FS showed no benefit over conventional suturing in facial nerve regeneration. Our study provides the potential of a new clinical application for PRP in peripheral nerve regeneration.

Previous research has shown clinical effectiveness of dermal substitution; however, in burn wounds, only limited effect has been shown. A problem in burn wounds is the reduced take of the autograft, when the substitute and graft are applied in one procedure. Recently, application of topical negative pressure (TNP) was shown to improve graft take. The aim of this study was to investigate if application of a dermal substitute in combination with TNP improves scar quality after burns. In a four-armed multicenter randomized controlled trial, a split-skin graft with or without a dermal substitute and with or without TNP was compared in patients with deep dermal or full-thickness burns requiring skin transplantation. Graft take and rate of wound epithelialization were evaluated. Three and 12 months postoperatively, scar parameters were measured. The results of 86 patients showed that graft take and epithelialization did not reveal significant differences. Significantly fewer wounds in the TNP group showed postoperative contamination, compared to other groups. Highest elasticity was measured in scars treated with the substitute and TNP, which was significantly better compared to scars treated with the substitute alone. Concluding, this randomized controlled trial shows the effectiveness of dermal substitution combined with TNP in burns, based on extensive wound and scar measurements.

Standardized validated evaluation instruments are mandatory to increase the level of evidence in scar management. Scar assessment scales are potentially suitable for this purpose, but the most appropriate scale still needs to be determined. This review will elaborate on several clinically relevant scar features and critically discuss the currently available scar scales in terms of basic clinimetric requirements. Many current scales can produce reliable measurements but seem to require multiple observers to obtain these results reliably, which limits their feasibility in clinical practice. The validation process of scar scales is hindered by the lack of a "gold standard" in subjective scar assessment or other reliable objective instruments which are necessary for a good comparison. The authors conclude that there are scar scales available that can reliably measure scar quality. However, further research may lead to improvement of their clinimetric properties and enhance the level of evidence in scar research worldwide.

PurposeThe Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is a questionnaire that was developed to assess scar quality. It consists of two separate six-item scales (Observer Scale and Patient Scale), both of which are scored on a 10-point rating scale. After many years of experience with this scale in burn scar assessment, it is appropriate to examine its psychometric properties using Rasch analysis.MethodsCross-sectional data collection from seven clinical trials resulted in a data set of 1,629 observer scores and 1,427 patient scores of burn scars. We examined the person–item map, item fit statistics, reliability, response category ordering, and dimensionality of the POSAS.ResultsThe POSAS showed an adequate fit to the Rasch model, except for the item surface area. Person reliability of the Observer Scale and Patient Scale was 0.82 and 0.77, respectively. Dimensionality analysis revealed that the unexplained variance by the first contrast of both scales was 1.7 units. Spearman correlation between the Observer Scale Rasch measure and the overall opinion of the clinician was 0.75.ConclusionThe Rasch model demonstrated that the POSAS is a reliable and valid scale that measures the single-construct scar quality.

No abstract

Based on the scar features color, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area, the best measurement tools that are currently available were recommended.

SummaryHistopathological evaluations of fibrotic processes require the characterization of collagen morphology in terms of geometrical features such as bundle orientation thickness and spacing. However, there are currently no reliable and valid techniques of measuring bundle thickness and spacing. Hence, two objective methods quantifying the collagen bundle thickness and spacing were tested for their reliability and validity: Fourier first-order maximum analysis and Distance Mapping, with the latter constituting a newly developed morphometric technique. Histological slides were constructed and imaged from 50 scar and 50 healthy human skin biopsies and subsequently analyzed by two observers to determine the interobserver reliability via the intraclass correlation coefficient. An intraclass correlation coefficient larger than 0.7 is considered as representing good reliability. The interobserver reliability for the Fourier first-order maximum and for the Distance Mapping algorithms, respectively, showed an intraclass correlation coefficient above 0.72 and 0.89. Additionally, we performed an assessment of validity in the form of responsiveness, in particular, demonstrating medium to excellent results via a calculation of the effect size, highlighting that both methods are sensitive enough to measure a treatment effect in clinical practice. In summary, two reliable and valid measurement methods were demonstrated for collagen bundle morphometry for the first time. Due to its superior reliability and more useful measures (bundle thickness and bundle spacing), Distance Mapping emerges as the preferred and more practical method. Nevertheless, in the future, both methods can be used for reliable and valid collagen morphometry of skin and scars, whereas further applications evaluating the quantitative microscopy of other fibrotic processes are anticipated.