Determining the Independent Risk Factors for Worse SCAR-Q Scores and Future Scar Revision Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Scar revisions have been increasing in number. Patient-reported outcome measures are one tool to aid scar modulation decision-making. The aims of this study were to determine patient, scar, and clinical risk factors for (1) low SCAR-Q Appearance, Symptom, and Psychosocial Impact scores and how this differs for children; and (2) the potential need for future scar revision surgery to better identify such patients in a clinical setting. METHODS: A multicenter international cross-sectional cohort study based on survey data of participants with traumatic, surgical, and burn scars attending plastic, hand, and burn clinics in four countries was conducted following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Univariate analysis to identify risk factors and multivariable logistic analysis to select risk factors were completed. Collinearity for nonindependent factors and C statistic for model discrimination were also calculated. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-one participants completed the study booklet, and 546 participants (74.7 percent) had full data. Independent risk factors were determined to be a bothersome scar and perception of scarring badly for all three scales. Risk factors for self-reporting the need for future surgery included a health condition, scarring badly, scar diagnosis, prior scar revision, and low Psychosocial Impact scores. We did not identify evidence of multicollinearity. C statistics were high (0.81 to 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first multicenter international study to examine independent risk factors for low patient-reported outcome measure scores and the potential need for future scar revision surgery. Patients that perceive themselves as scarring badly and having a bothersome scar were at a higher risk of scar appearance concern, an increased symptom burden, and poorer psychosocial impact scores. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Psychometric Findings for the SCAR-Q Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Based on 731 Children and Adults with Surgical, Traumatic, and Burn Scars from Four Countries.

BACKGROUND: Each year, millions of individuals develop scars secondary to surgery, trauma, and/or burns. Scar-specific patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate outcomes are needed. To address the gap in available measures, the SCAR-Q was developed following international guidelines for patient-reported outcome measure development. This study field tested the SCAR-Q and examined its psychometric properties. METHODS: Patients aged 8 years and older with a surgical, traumatic, and/or burn scar anywhere on their face or body were recruited between March of 2017 and April of 2018 at seven hospitals in four countries. Participants answered demographic and scar questions, the Fitzpatrick Skin Typing Questionnaire, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), and the SCAR-Q. Rasch measurement theory was used for the psychometric analysis. Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity were also examined. RESULTS: Consent was obtained from 773 patients, and 731 completed the study. Participants were aged 8 to 88 years, and 354 had surgical, 184 had burn, and 199 had traumatic scars. Analysis led to refinement of the SCAR-Q Appearance, Symptoms, and Psychosocial Impact scales. Reliability was high, with person separation index values of 0.91, 0.81, and 0.79; Cronbach alpha values of 0.96, 0.91, and 0.95; and intraclass correlation coefficient values of 0.92, 0.94, and 0.88, respectively. As predicted, correlations between POSAS scores and the Appearance and Symptom scales were higher than those between POSAS and Psychosocial Impact scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing scar revisions, a scar-specific patient-reported outcome measure is needed to measure outcomes that matter to patients from their perspective. The SCAR-Q represents a rigorously developed, internationally applicable patient-reported outcome measure that can be used to evaluate scars in research, clinical care, and quality improvement initiatives.

Reconstrucción plantar con matriz de regeneración dérmica (Integra®) en paciente quemado eléctrico: presentación de un caso y revisión de la literatura / Plantar reconstruction with matrix of dermal regeneration (Integra®) in an electric burned patient: case report and literature review

Resumen Introducción: Las lesiones complejas de la cara plantar del pie son de difícil manejo desde el punto de vista reconstructivo. En la literatura el tratamiento de elección es la cobertura mediante colgajos libres. Nuestro objetivo es presentar el caso de un paciente con una lesión plantar compleja, exitosamente resuelta con el uso de matriz de regeneración dérmica (Integra®) e injerto dermoepidérmico. Caso clínico: Hombre de 35 años, que sufre quemadura eléctrica de alta tensión con lesión compleja plantar bilateral. Se manejó con escarectomías sucesivas hasta delimitar el daño tisular, y posterior cobertura con Integra® e injerto con resultado estético y funcional óptimo. Discusión: Aunque los colgajos libres son la elección en el tratamiento de esta zona anatómica, infrecuentemente son la única alternativa de reconstrucción en el paciente quemado. No hay mayor evidencia en la literatura en el uso de matrices dérmicas para la cobertura de este tipo de lesiones. Conclusión: Los autores consideran que el manejo de lesiones plantares complejas mediante el uso de matrices de regeneración dérmica es una alternativa válida a considerar en situaciones en que, por diversos motivos, no se puede ofrecer un colgajo libre.

Abstract Introduction: Complex wounds of the plantar aspect of the foot are difficult to manage in the reconstructive point of view. The standard of treatment is covering the defect with free flaps. Our goal is to present the case of a patient successfully treated with the use of matrix dermal regenaration Integra® and dermoepidermal graft for a complex plantar lesion. Clinical case: Thirty-five year old man, who suffers from high voltage electrical burn with bilateral plantar complex injury. It was handled with successive escharectomies to delimit tissue damage and subsequent coverage with Integra® and grafting with optimal aesthetic and functional results. Discussion: Although free flaps are the choice in the treatment of this anatomical area, they are infrequently the only reconstructive option in burned patients. There is no greater evidence in the literature on the use of dermal matrices to cover such injuries. Conclusion: The authors believe that the management of complex footpad lesions using dermal regeneration matrices are a valid alternative to consider in situations where for various reasons, free flaps can't be offered.

Methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in burns care. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in burn care treatment and management. METHODS: Using a predetermined search strategy we searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January 2008) database to identify all English RCTs related to burn care. Full text studies identified were reviewed for key demographic and methodological characteristics. Methodological trial quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. RESULTS: A total of 257 studies involving 14,535 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median Jadad score was 2 (out of a best possible score of 5). Information was given in the introduction and discussion sections of most RCTs, although insufficient detail was provided on randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding. The number of RCTs increased between 1950 and 2008 (Spearman's rho=0.6129, P<0.001), although the reporting quality did not improve over the same time period (P=0.1896) and was better in RCTs with larger sample sizes (median Jadad score, 4 vs. 2 points, P<0.0001). Methodological quality did not correlate with journal impact factor (P=0.2371). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting standards of RCTs are highly variable and less than optimal in most cases. The advent of evidence-based medicine heralds a new approach to burns care and systematic steps are needed to improve the quality of RCTs in this field. Identifying and reviewing the existing number of RCTs not only highlights the need for burn clinicians to conduct more trials, but may also encourage burn health clinicians to consider the importance of conducting trials that follow appropriate, evidence-based standards.