How to evaluate scar colour after burn injuries - A clinical comparison of the Mexameter® and the subjective scar assessment (POSAS/VSS).

INTRODUCTION: Scarring after burn injuries remains one of the major challenges in burn medicine and is the subject of current research. Accurate and high-quality assessment of scars is needed to enable exact outcome evaluation of different treatments. Our aim was to evaluate the most common subjective scar evaluation scores-the POSAS (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) and VSS (Vancouver Scar Scale)-in comparison with the objective device Mexameter® for colour evaluation. METHODS: A prospective monocentre study was performed, which included 120 examined scar areas of 60 patients with third degree burns who had received skin grafts between 1975 and 2018 with a total burned surface area (TBSA) > 2%. Two different scar areas in comparison with one healthy skin area concerning 'colour', 'pigmentation', and 'vascularization' were evaluated by the Mexameter® MX 18, the OSAS, and the VSS by the same examiner, as well as the PSAS by the patient. RESULTS: The mean TBSA of the 60 patients was 24.3%. In the OSAS, 61% of the scars were evaluated as 'hyper-', 19% as 'hypo-', and 19% as 'mix-pigmented'. Furthermore, 65% of the scars were estimated as highly vascularized. In the Mexameter®, the melanin index values of the scar areas compared to the healthy skin areas showed a small difference of 12 (p < 0.05). The mean difference of erythema between the scar and the healthy skin areas was 84 (p < 0.001). For the Mexameter®, moderate correlations were found when comparing 'erythema' with the OSAS category 'vascularization' (r = 0.33, p < 0.05) and 'melanin' with the OSAS parameter 'pigmentation' (r = 0.28, p < 0.05). When comparing the Mexameter® measurements to the OSAS questionnaire, 27% of the scars were wrongly evaluated as 'hyperpigmented' by the observer and 21% as 'hypervascularized', while showing low measurements in the device. Additionally, a novel Mexameter® ordinal scare scale was calculated. CONCLUSION: In this study, we were able to show on a relatively large patient population that with the Mexameter®, the subjectivity of the scar colour assessment by examiner/patient can be overcome, but precise differentiation can still be ensured with subjective evaluation tools. We further introduced a novel Mexameter® Scar Scale. It is necessary to further investigate the vast range of objective devices and develop scar panels for with an incorporation of objective and subjective devices to further improve reliability with reduced bias in terms of scar assessment.

[Research Assessment in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery on a National Level: A 5-Years Systematic Review of Research Activity in German University Hospitals]. / Eine Analyse der Forschungsaktivität universitärer Kliniken für Plastische Chirurgie im nationalen Vergleich: Eine systematische 5-Jahres Evaluation der Forschungsaktivität in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: In plastic surgery, a broad spectrum of research activity has been performed over the past decade. However, compared with other medical fields, there seems to be a lack of central coordination in the individual research areas. Also no comprehensive, periodical assessment has been undertaken to date. This study aims to provide an overview of German research activity in plastic surgery departments affiliated to medical universities. METHODS: We performed a 5-year interval (01/2010-12/2014) survey of PubMed-listed publications of plastic surgery departments in German university hospitals. For each university (n=11), statistical analyses of the following parameters were performed: distribution of research fields, number of publications, annual cumulative impact sum (IS) and impact factor (IF). RESULTS: For the above-mentioned period, a total of n=904 publications were analysed. Ranking among academic departments was as follows: number of publications: 1. Medizinische Hochschule Hannover 178 (annual average x̅=36/median x͂=34; 2. University Hospital of Erlangen 115 (x̅=23/x͂=23); 3. Bergmannsheil Bochum 90 (x̅=18/x͂=19). The annual impact sum (IS) averaged 33.51 (SD 11.088, p<0.05); separated IS: 1. Medizinische Hochschule Hannover x̅=74.66, x͂=62.22, 2. University Hospital of Erlangen x̅=53.24, x͂=50.84, 3. University Hospital RWTH Aachen x̅=46.12, x͂=44.67. The average impact factor per publication was: 1.98 (SD 0.31, p<0.05); separated IF: 1. University Hospital RWTH Aachen x̅=2.76, x͂=2.79; 2. University Hospital of Erlangen x̅=2.34, x͂=2.46; 3. Medizinische Hochschule Hannover x̅=2.08, x͂=2.05. The analysed publications were distributed as follows: 43% reviews, 20% cell biology/tissue engineering, 10% reconstruction, 27% others (including wound healing, vessel/nerve research, hand surgery, burn, aesthetics, oncology). CONCLUSION: Based on this comprehensive analysis, it seems that a periodical assessment of current research activity would be useful for the future. Data assessments should be started on European and international levels and should also be applied to other surgical and medical disciplines.