Randomized, controlled, within-patient, single-blinded pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of 12-weeks of endermotherapy with adult burn survivors.

BACKGROUND: Vacuum massage, or endermotherapy, is applied to scar tissue with the primary therapeutic goal of promoting structural or physiological changes. These changes are intended to enhance pliability, enabling the skin to possess the strength and elasticity required for normal mobility. The advantage of vacuum massage compared to therapist-generated manual massage is that it provides a standardized dosage using rollers and suction valves to mobilize the tissue. However, research documenting and supporting its impact on post-burn hypertrophic scar is lacking. Thus, this study was designed to objectively characterize the changes in scar elasticity, erythema, melanin, thickness, and transepidermal water loss immediately after a vacuum massage session and after a 12-week course of treatment compared to intra-individual matched control scars. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, within-patient, single-blinded clinical trial, initially designed as a fully-powered study but limited to a pilot study due to COVID-19 restrictions. Nineteen burn survivors consented to participate and 16 completed the study. Two homogeneous, intra-individual scars were randomized to usual care control or vacuum massage therapy plus usual care. Vacuum massage interventions were provided by a certified massage therapist three times per week for 12 weeks. Scar characteristics were evaluated every four weeks immediately before and after mechanical massage treatment. The evaluations included measurements of elasticity (Cutometer), erythema and melanin (Mexameter), transepidermal water loss (TEWL) (Tewameter), and thickness (high-frequency ultrasound). Linear mixed-model analyses were performed to test for immediate and long-term treatment effects. RESULTS: The ANOVA analyses revealed a non-significant time:treatment interaction for elasticity, erythema, melanin, thickness, or TEWL. There was a significant increase in elasticity and erythema and a decrease in TEWL in both the control and treatment sites over time with consistent standard care. However, there was no statistically significant immediate or long-term treatment effect for any of the skin characteristics. Nonetheless, the mean participant satisfaction was 4/5 (SD = 1.5) and the mean participant perception of effectiveness was 8/10 (SD = 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study did not find a treatment benefit of vacuum massage therapy for elasticity, erythema, melanin, thickness or TEWL, but it did find an improvement with time in elasticity, erythema and TEWL. Despite the lack of objective improvement of the treated scar site, participants were satisfied with the results and believed vacuum massage was very effective. Further high-quality research is required to better inform clinicians patient education and treatment decisions for this costly, burdensome treatment approach that has high participant satisfaction.

Validation of the Burn Survivor Fear-Avoidance Questionnaire and Its Association With Pain Intensity, Catastrophizing, and Disability.

According to the Fear-avoidance (FA) model, FA beliefs can lead to disability due to avoidance of activities expected to result in pain or further injury. Extensive research on the relationship of FA, pain, catastrophizing, and disability has been generated with patients suffering from chronic neck and back pain, but little research has been conducted with burn survivors. To address this need, the Burn Survivor FA Questionnaire (BSFAQ) was developed (Langlois J, Vincent-Toskin, S, Duchesne, P et al. Fear-avoidance beliefs and behaviors of burn survivors: A mixed-methods approach. Burns 2021;47:175-89.) but has not been validated. Thus, the primary objective of this study was to investigate the construct validity of the BSFAQ among burn survivors. The secondary objective was to examine the relationship between FA and 1) pain intensity and 2) catastrophizing at baseline, 3 months and 6 months postburn, and 3) disability among burn survivors at 6 months postburn. A prospective mixed-methods approach was used to examine the construct validity by comparing the quantitative scores of the BSFAQ to independently performed qualitative interviews of burn survivors (n = 31) that explored their lived experiences, to determine if the BSFAQ discriminated those who had, from those who did not have FA beliefs. Data for the secondary objective, scores of burn survivors (n = 51) pain intensity (numeric rating scale), catastrophizing (pain catastrophizing scale), and disability (Burn Specific Health Scale-brief), were collected through a retrospective chart review. For the primary objective, Wilcoxon rank sum test results showed a statistically significant difference (P = .015) between the BSFAQ scores of participants who were identified from the qualitative interviews as fear avoidant compared to those who were identified as non fear avoidant, with a receiver operating characteristic curve indicating that the BSFAQ correctly predicted FA 82.4% of the time. For the secondary objective, Spearman correlation test results showed a moderate correlation between FA and 1) pain at baseline (r = .466, P = .002), 2) catastrophizing thoughts over time (r = .557, P = .000; r = .470, P = .00; r = .559, P = .002 respectively at each time point), and 3) disability at 6 months postburn (r = -.643, P = .000). These results support that the BSFAQ is able to discriminate which burn survivors are experiencing FA beliefs. It is also consistent with the FA model since burn survivors who express FA are more likely to report higher levels of pain early during their recovery that correlates with persistently elevated catastrophizing thoughts and ultimately results in higher self-reported disability. The BSFAQ demonstrates construct validity and is able to correctly predict fear-avoidant burn survivors; however, additional research is required to further examine the BSFAQ's clinimetric properties.

Rehabilitation interventions after hand burn injury in adults: A systematic review.

The aim of this review was to summarise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in improving hand function, range of motion (ROM), hand strength, scar outcome, return to work, level of impairment/disability, level of burn knowledge and decreasing edema following hand burns in adult burn survivors. This review provides evidence-based support for the use of rehabilitation interventions for burn rehabilitation professionals. The following data sources were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from their inception up to February 2021, reference lists from all the included full-text articles were screened for additional relevant publications and monthly Google Scholar searches until December 23rd 2021 to make sure all new pertinent published articles after February 2021 would be included. Thirty-five studies were included in this review including 14 RCTs. Most of the included studies were Level 4 (46%; 16/35) and Level 2 (40%; 14/35) evidence. Only four studies were classified as Level 3 (14%; 5/35) evidence and none were considered Level 1. Most studies received a score of 5-9 (54%; 19/35) (Moderate quality). Fourteen studies received a score of ≥ 10 (40%; 14/35) (High quality) and only 2 studies received a score of< 5 (6%; 2/35) (Low quality). Articles were categorized according to the primary outcome targeted by the intervention. Clinical recommendations on higher-level evidence interventions are presented. This review supports the clinical practice of the following interventions: 1) The use of adhesive compression wraps for patients who have increased edema to increase hand function and ROM; 2) The use of compression (adhesive compressive wrap, compression bandage or intermittent compression pump) to decrease hand edema following burn injury; 3) Participating in general rehabilitation to increase hand function and patient perceived level of disability; 4) The use of an orthosis to increase ROM and a dynamic MCP orthosis to increase hand function; 5) If available, incorporate the use of VR based rehabilitation to increase hand function and hand strength; 6) The use of paraffin to increase hand PROM; 7) The use of gels to reduce hand scar thickness; 8) The use of an education component in rehabilitation to increase the level of burn knowledge. The limitations of this study are also discussed. Further research with robust methodology is needed to investigate the potential benefits of treatment interventions included in this review.