Pressure-garment therapy for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury.

BACKGROUND: Burn damage to skin often results in scarring; however in some individuals the failure of normal wound-healing processes results in excessive scar tissue formation, termed 'hypertrophic scarring'. The most commonly used method for the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scarring is pressure-garment therapy (PGT). PGT is considered standard care globally; however, there is continued uncertainty around its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pressure-garment therapy for the prevention of hypertrophic scarring after burn injury. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trials registers on 8 June 2023 with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PGT (alone or in combination with other scar-management therapies) with scar management therapies not including PGT, or comparing different PGT pressures or different types of PGT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion using predetermined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies in this review (1179 participants), 14 of which (1057 participants) presented useable data. The sample size of included studies ranged from 17 to 159 participants. Most studies included both adults and children. Eight studies compared a pressure garment (with or without another scar management therapy) with scar management therapy alone, five studies compared the same pressure garment at a higher pressure versus a lower pressure, and two studies compared two different types of pressure garments. Studies used a variety of pressure garments (e.g. in-house manufactured or a commercial brand). Types of scar management therapies included were lanolin massage, topical silicone gel, silicone sheet/dressing, and heparin sodium ointment. Meta-analysis was not possible as there was significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies. Main outcome measures were scar improvement assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) or the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) (or both), pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence to therapy. Studies additionally reported a further 14 outcomes, mostly individual scar parameters, some of which contributed to global scores on the VSS or POSAS. The amount of evidence for each individual outcome was limited. Most studies had a short follow-up, which may have affected results as the full effect of any therapy on scar healing may not be seen until around 18 months. PGT versus no treatment/lanolin We included five studies (378 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on whether PGT improves scars as assessed by the VSS compared with no treatment/lanolin. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, adverse events, and adherence. No study used the POSAS or assessed quality of life. One additional study (122 participants) did not report useable data. PGT versus silicone We included three studies (359 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT compared with silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, adherence, and other scar parameters. It is possible that silicone may result in fewer adverse events or better adherence compared with PGT but this was also based on very low-certainty evidence. PGT plus silicone versus no treatment/lanolin We included two studies (200 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on whether PGT plus silicone improves scars as assessed by the VSS compared with no treatment/lanolin. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, and adverse events. No study used the POSAS or assessed quality of life or adherence. PGT plus silicone versus silicone We included three studies (359 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT plus silicone compared with silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence. PGT plus scar management therapy including silicone versus scar management therapy including silicone We included one study (88 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT plus scar management therapy including silicone versus scar management therapy including silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence. High-pressure versus low-pressure garments We included five studies (262 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of high pressure versus low pressure PGT on adverse events and adherence. No study used the VSS or the POSAS or assessed pain, pruritus, or quality of life. Different types of PGT (Caroskin Tricot + an adhesive silicone gel sheet versus Gecko Nanoplast (silicone gel bandage)) We included one study (60 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of Caroskin Tricot versus Gecko Nanoplast on the POSAS, pain, pruritus, and adverse events. The study did not use the VSS or assess quality of life or adherence. Different types of pressure garments (Jobst versus Tubigrip) We included one study (110 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the adherence to either Jobst or Tubigrip. This study did not report any other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend using either PGT or an alternative for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury. PGT is already commonly used in practice and it is possible that continuing to do so may provide some benefit to some people. However, until more evidence becomes available, it may be appropriate to allow patient preference to guide therapy.

A Histological and Clinical Study of MatriDerm® Use in Burn Reconstruction.

Dermal substitutes are well established in the reconstructive ladder. MatriDerm® (Dr. Otto Suwelack Skin & Health Care AG, Billerbeck, Germany) is a single-layer dermal substitute composed of a bovine collagen (type I, III, and V) and elastin hydrolysate, that allows for immediate split-thickness skin grafting (SSG). The aim of this study was to histologically characterize the integration of MatriDerm® when used during burns surgery reconstruction. Eight subjects with nine burn scars and one acute burn wound underwent reconstruction with MatriDerm® and an immediate SSG. MatriDerm® integration and skin graft take were assessed with serial biopsies performed at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 and months 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Biopsies were assessed with standard special stains and immunohistochemistry, and representative slides were imaged with a transmission electron microscope. Patient satisfaction and clinical scar outcome were assessed with the Vancouver Scar Scale and a patient questionnaire. Histological analysis showed similar stages of wound healing as shown in other dermal templates but on a different timescale. There is early evidence of vascularization and an inflammatory infiltrate in the first 2 weeks. MatriDerm® is resorbed earlier than other dermal substitutes, with evidence of resorption at week 3, to be completely replaced by a neodermis at 2 months. The use of MatriDerm® in reconstruction with immediate skin grafting is supported histologically with early evidence of vascularization to support an epidermal autograft. Future histological studies may help further characterize the ideal dermal substitute.

Acute burn injuries associated with long-term mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that the pathophysiological impact of acute burn injuries may have chronic health consequences. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between burn injuries and long-term mortality in patients surviving to initial discharge from hospital. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were searched on 22 October 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared long-term mortality amongst burn survivors to non-injured controls from the general population. When the same output metrics related to mortality were reported, meta-analyses were undertaken using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: Following an extensive literature search, six studies (seven articles) were identified for inclusion. They were predominantly based in high-income countries, with each comparing burns' survivors to matched non-injured controls from the general population. The four studies included in the meta-analysis had a combined unadjusted odds ratio of 2.65 (1.84 - 3.81; 95 % confidence interval) and adjusted mortality rate ratio of 1.59 (1.31 - 1.93; 95 % confidence interval). Thus, burn survivors demonstrated greater mortality rates when compared to their non-injured counterparts. Similar findings were illustrated in the remaining studies not included in the meta-analysis, with the exception of one study which found no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that acute burn injuries may be associated with greater long-term mortality rates (unadjusted and adjusted). The underlying mechanism is unclear and further work is required to establish the role of certain factors such as biological ageing processes, to improve outcomes for burn patients.

Burn injury prevention in low- and middle- income countries: scoping systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Burn injuries are a leading cause of morbidity and disability, with the burden of disease being disproportionately higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Burn prevention programmes have led to significant reductions in the incidence of burns in high-income countries. However, a previous systematic review published in 2015 highlighted that implementation and evaluation of similar programmes has been limited in LMIC. The objective of this scoping review and narrative synthesis was to summarise and understand the initiatives that have been carried out to reduce burn injuries in LMIC and their effectiveness. METHODS: We aimed to identify publications that described studies of effectiveness of burn prevention interventions applied to any population within a LMIC and measured burn incidence or burns-related outcomes. Suitable publications were identified from three sources. Firstly, data was extracted from manuscripts identified in the systematic review published by Rybarczyk et al. We then performed a search for manuscripts on burn prevention interventions published between January 2015 and September 2020. Finally, we extracted data from two systematic reviews where burn evidence was not the primary outcome, which were identified by senior authors. A quality assessment and narrative synthesis of included manuscripts were performed. RESULTS: In total, 24 manuscripts were identified and categorized according to intervention type. The majority of manuscripts (n = 16) described education-based interventions. Four manuscripts focused on environmental modification interventions and four adopted a mixed-methods approach. All of the education-based initiatives demonstrated improvements in knowledge relating to burn safety or first aid, however few measured the impact of their intervention on burn incidence. Four manuscripts described population-based educational interventions and noted reductions in burn incidence. Only one of the four manuscripts describing environmental modification interventions reported burns as a primary outcome measure, noting a reduction in burn incidence. All mixed-method interventions demonstrated some positive improvements in either burn incidence or burns-related safety practices. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of published literature describing large-scale burn prevention programmes in LMIC that can demonstrate sustained reductions in burn incidence. Population-level, collaborative projects are necessary to drive forward burn prevention through specific environmental or legislative changes and supplementary educational programmes.

Ability of Spine Specialists to Identify Psychosocial Risk Factors as Obstacles to Recovery in Patients with Low Back Pain-Related Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. PURPOSE: Yellow flags are psychosocial associated with a greater likelihood of progression to persistent pain and disability. These are referred to as obstacles to recovery. Despite their recognized importance, it is unknown how effective clinicians are in detecting them. The primary objective of this study was thus to determine the effectiveness of spine specialist clinicians in detecting the presence of yellow flags in patients presenting to an orthopedic outpatient clinic with low back-related disorders. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Psychosocial factors have been previously studied as important predictors of prognosis in patients with low back pain. However, the ability of spinal specialist to identify them remains unknown. METHODS: A prospective, single-center, consecutive cohort study was conducted over a period of 30 months. All new patients with low back-related disorders regardless of pathology completed a Yellow Flag Questionnaire that was adapted from the psychosocial flags framework. Clinicians assessing these patients completed a standardized form to determine which and how many yellow flags they had identified during the consultation. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were included in the analysis, and the clinicians reported an average of 5 flags (range, 0-9). Fear of movement or injury was the most frequently reported yellow flag, reported by 87.7% (n=114) of patients. Clinician sensitivity in detecting yellow flags was poor, correctly identifying only 2 flags, on average, of the 5 reported by patients, with an overall sensitivity of only 39%. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of spine specialists to identify yellow flags is poor and can be improved by asking patients to complete a simple screening questionnaire.

Prospective comparative evaluation study of Laser Doppler Imaging and thermal imaging in the assessment of burn depth.

INTRODUCTION: The accurate assessment of burn depth is challenging but crucial for surgical excision and tissue preservation. Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) has gained increasing acceptance as a tool to aid depth assessment but its adoption is hampered by high costs, long scan times and limited portability. Thermal imaging is touted as a suitable alternative however few comparison studies have been done. METHODS: Sixteen burn patients with 52 regions of interests were analysed. Burn depth was determined using four methods LDI, thermal imaging, photographic and real-time clinical evaluation at day 1 and day 3. LDI flux and Delta T values were used for the prediction of outcomes (wound closure in <21 days). Photographic clinical evaluation of burn depth was performed by 4 blinded burn surgeons. RESULTS: Accuracy of assessment methods were greater on post burn day 3 compared to day 0. Accuracies of LDI on post burn day 0 and 3 were 80.8% and 92.3% compared to 55.8% and 71.2% for thermal imaging and 62.5% and 71.6% for photographic clinical assessment. Real-time clinical examination had an accuracy of 88.5%. Thermal imaging scan times were significantly faster compared to LDI. DISCUSSION: LDI outperforms thermal imaging in terms of diagnostic accuracy of burn depth likely due to the susceptibility of thermal imaging to environmental factors.

A systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients.

BACKGROUND: The early diagnosis of infection or sepsis in burns are important for patient care. Globally, a large number of burn centres advocate quantitative cultures of wound biopsies for patient management, since there is assumed to be a direct link between the bioburden of a burn wound and the risk of microbial invasion. Given the conflicting study findings in this area, a systematic review was warranted. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched with no language restrictions to August 2015. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate using pre-defined criteria. Substantial heterogeneity precluded quantitative synthesis, and findings were described narratively, sub-grouped by clinical question. RESULTS: Twenty six laboratory and/or clinical studies were included. Substantial heterogeneity hampered comparisons across studies and interpretation of findings. Limited evidence suggests that (i) more than one quantitative microbiology sample is required to obtain reliable estimates of bacterial load; (ii) biopsies are more sensitive than swabs in diagnosing or predicting sepsis; (iii) high bacterial loads may predict worse clinical outcomes, and (iv) both quantitative and semi-quantitative culture reports need to be interpreted with caution and in the context of other clinical risk factors. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for the utility and reliability of quantitative microbiology for diagnosing or predicting clinical outcomes in burns patients is limited and often poorly reported. Consequently future research is warranted.

A systematic review of objective burn scar measurements.

BACKGROUND: Problematic scarring remains a challenging aspect to address in the treatment of burns and can significantly affect the quality of life of the burn survivor. At present, there are few treatments available in the clinic to control adverse scarring, but experimental pharmacological anti-scarring strategies are now beginning to emerge. Their comparative success must be based on objective measurements of scarring, yet currently the clinical assessment of scars is not carried out systematically and is mostly based on subjective review of patients. However, several techniques and devices are being introduced that allow objective analysis of the burn scar. The aim of this article is to evaluate various objective measurement tools currently available and recommend a useful panel that is suitable for use in clinical trials of anti-scarring therapies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was done using the Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane databases. The identified devices were then classified and grouped according to the parameters they measured. The tools were then compared and assessed in terms of inter- and intra-rater reproducibility, ease of use and cost. RESULTS: After duplicates were removed, 5062 articles were obtained in the search. After further screening, 157 articles which utilised objective burn scar measurement systems or tools were obtained. The scar measurement devices can be broadly classified into those measuring colour, metric variables, texture, biomechanical properties and pathophysiological disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: Objective scar measurement tools allow the accurate and reproducible evaluation of scars, which is important for both clinical and scientific use. However, studies to evaluate their relative performance and merits of these tools are scarce, and there remain factors, such as itch and pain, which cannot be measured objectively. On reviewing the available evidence, a panel of devices for objective scar measurement is recommended consisting of the 3D cameras (Eykona/Lifeviz/Vectra H1) for surface area and volume, DSM II colorimeter for colour, Dermascan high-frequency ultrasound for scar thickness and Cutometer for skin elasticity and pliability.

History of burns: The past, present and the future.

Burn injuries are one of the most common and devastating afflictions on the human body. In this article we look back at how the treatment of burns has evolved over the centuries from a primarily topical therapy consisting of weird and wonderful topical concoctions in ancient times to one that spans multiple scientific fields of topical therapy, antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, skin excision and grafting, respiratory and metabolic care and nutrition. Most major advances in burn care occurred in the last 50 years, spurred on by wars and great fires. The use of systemic antibiotics and topical silver therapy greatly reduced sepsis related mortality. This along with the advent of antiseptic surgical techniques, burn depth classification and skin grafting allowed the excision and coverage of full-thickness burns which resulted in greatly improved survival rates. Advancements in the methods of assessing the surface area of burns paved way for more accurate fluid resuscitation, minimising the effects of shock and avoiding fluid over-loading. The introduction of metabolic care, nutritional support and care of inhalational injuries further improved the outcome of burn patients. We also briefly discuss some future directions in burn care such as the use of cell and pharmalogical therapies.

Patient-reported outcomes post axillary block dissections for skin cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There are limited studies that look at morbidities in patients who have undergone axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for skin cancer. To date, there has been no study examining the functional status of the upper limb postoperatively. This study studies the disability in upper limb function of patients postoperatively and looks for factors that influence this. METHODS: Twenty-five patients who have undergone level I-III ALND were interviewed using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and European Quality of Life (EuroQol) questionnaires to determine their upper limb functional status and overall quality of life. These data were then compared with epidemiological and surgical factors collected from the patients' notes retrospectively to look for influencing factors. RESULTS: The majority of patients had low disability scores, with only 12% of patients having a score of 40 and above (out of 100). Age of patient, seniority of operator, surgery on the same side of hand dominance, seroma formation and physiotherapy had no significant effect on DASH scores. A higher DASH score was associated with the patients viewing themselves as 'less healthy'. CONCLUSION: ALND for cutaneous skin cancers does not result in a significant increase in upper limb disability in the majority of patients.