Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars: Pathophysiology, Classification, and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Keloid and hypertrophic scars represent an aberrant response to the wound healing process. These scars are characterized by dysregulated growth with excessive collagen formation, and can be cosmetically and functionally disruptive to patients. OBJECTIVE: Objectives are to describe the pathophysiology of keloid and hypertrophic scar, and to compare differences with the normal wound healing process. The classification of keloids and hypertrophic scars are then discussed. Finally, various treatment options including prevention, conventional therapies, surgical therapies, and adjuvant therapies are described in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review was performed identifying relevant publications pertaining to the pathophysiology, classification, and treatment of keloid and hypertrophic scars. RESULTS: Though the pathophysiology of keloid and hypertrophic scars is not completely known, various cytokines have been implicated, including interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-10, as well as various growth factors including transforming growth factor-beta and platelet-derived growth factor. Numerous treatments have been studied for keloid and hypertrophic scars,which include conventional therapies such as occlusive dressings, compression therapy, and steroids; surgical therapies such as excision and cryosurgery; and adjuvant and emerging therapies including radiation therapy, interferon, 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod, tacrolimus, sirolimus, bleomycin, doxorubicin, transforming growth factor-beta, epidermal growth factor, verapamil, retinoic acid, tamoxifen, botulinum toxin A, onion extract, silicone-based camouflage, hydrogel scaffold, and skin tension offloading device. CONCLUSION: Keloid and hypertrophic scars remain a challenging condition, with potential cosmetic and functional consequences to patients. Several therapies exist which function through different mechanisms. Better understanding into the pathogenesis will allow for development of newer and more targeted therapies in the future.

[Therapy of acne scars]. / Therapie der Aknenarben.

Acne scarring is common but difficult to treat. A descriptive, universally acceptable classification system of atrophic acne scars includes three scar types: icepick, boxcar, and rolling. Erythema and, less often, pigmentary changes may be associated. Once the scar type has been defined, appropriate treatment regimens can be offered. It is important to emphasize to the patient that acne scars can be improved by a variety of medical or surgical methods but never entirely reversed.

What score on the Vancouver Scar Scale constitutes a hypertrophic scar? Results from a survey of North American burn-care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable characterization of a hypertrophic scar (HTS) is integral to epidemiologic studies designed to identify clinical and genetic risk factors for HTS. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) has been widely used for this purpose; however, no publication has defined what score on this scale corresponds to a clinical diagnosis of HTS. METHODS: In a survey of 1000 burn care providers, we asked respondents what VSS score indicates a HTS and asked them to score scar photos using the VSS. We used receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves to evaluate VSS sub-scores and their combinations in diagnosis of HTS. RESULTS: Of 130 responses (13.5%), most were physicians (43.9%) who had worked in burn care for over 10 years (63.1%) and did not use the VSS in clinical practice (58.5%). There was no consensus as to what VSS score indicates a diagnosis of HTS. VSS height score (0-3) performed best for diagnosis of HTS; using a cut-off of ≥1, height score was 99.5% sensitive and 85.9% specific for HTS. CONCLUSIONS: Burn clinicians do not routinely use the VSS and perceptions vary widely regarding what constitutes a HTS. When a dichotomous variable is needed, the VSS height score with a cut-off of ≥1 may be optimal. Our findings underscore the need for an objective tool to reproducibly characterize HTS across burn centers.

Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver Scar Scale and scar volume.

The increased focus of research interests and clinical documentation on outcomes demands that evaluation tools provide reliable and valid data. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was developed to provide a more objective measurement of burn scars; however, the validity (a test's ability to measure the phenomenon for which it was designed) of the VSS has not been tested. To examine the construct validity of the VSS, we compared it with scar volume, which has established face validity. Burn scars were evaluated monthly for a minimum of 7 months. Three scar volume measurements were performed on each scar. In addition, 3 independent examiners completed the VSS for the same scar. The data generated by these 2 measurements were used to establish the following: (1) the interrater agreement estimated by interclass correlation coefficient, (2) convergence validity, (3) the sensitivity of the assessments to discriminate changes in the scar over time, and (4) the prevalence of related parameters that are not currently being captured by the VSS. In an attempt to address some of the deficiencies of the VSS, we propose several modifications. We anticipate that these changes will increase the reliability and validity of the VSS through an increase in the awareness that training in the use of this scale is required, through improvement in the quality of the subscales, and through the documentation of additional pertinent information.

The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability.

The Burn Scar Index, often called the Vancouver Scar Scale, is widely used in clinical practice and research to document change in scar appearance. Several sections of the Index require equipment to accurately score the items. Additionally, the numeric scores are difficult to remember. We recently devised a pocket-sized tool to aid in scoring the scar and to increase staff compliance in use of the Index. With this tool interrater reliability is good, which makes the Burn Scar Index a viable measure for research.

Reliability of photographic analysis in determining change in scar appearance.

Photographs frequently are used to document change in the management of hypertrophic scars. The purpose of this study was to design a scale for the analysis of photographs of hypertrophic scars and to test its reliability. The subjects were four occupational and physical therapists, (two novices and two experts), in scar management. Existing scales were modified to produce a new scale. The subjects twice rated four slides from each of ten patients' scars, in random order. They used a Latin Square design. Interrater and test-retest reliabilities were calculated using a weighted kappa statistic. The newly developed scale demonstrated interrater reliability, which ranged between 0.66 and 0.90 for all items. The test-retest reliability ranged between 0.73 and 0.89 for all items. The new scale had substantial reliability (using a single rater) and was at least as reliable when used by novice therapists. This indicated that training had no effect.

A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use.

INTRODUCTION: A lack of high quality burn scar rating scales underpins the urgent need to introduce a guide for clinicians and researchers to choose the most appropriate scale for their requirements. METHODS: An updated electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from 2010 to 2011 of a previous published systematic review were used to identify English articles related to burn scar rating scales. The clinimetric properties, content, purpose, characteristics of the subjects tested and feasibility of each scale were critically reviewed. RESULTS: An additional seven papers were identified by the updated search, bringing the total number of papers reviewed to 36. The majority (88%) covered items pertaining to the physical properties of the skin rated by an observer. All of the scales had been tested for the purpose of discriminating between patient groups; however, only preliminary evidence exists for the ability of the scales to measure change in scar properties over time. The majority of testing of scales occurred using Caucasian subjects, males, upper limb sites and adults. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a guide to selecting the most appropriate burn scar rating scale for research and clinical practice by reviewing the content, purpose, test sample characteristics and feasibility of each scale.

A modified Vancouver Scar Scale linked with TBSA (mVSS-TBSA): Inter-rater reliability of an innovative burn scar assessment method.

BACKGROUND: Current scar assessment methods do not capture variation in scar outcome across the burn scar surface area. A new method (mVSS-TBSA) using a modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) linked with %TBSA was devised and inter-rater reliability was assessed. METHOD: Three raters performed scar assessments on thirty patients with burn scars using the mVSS-TBSA. Scoring on pigmentation, vascularity, pliability and height was undertaken for the 'best' and 'worst' areas of each scar. Raters allocated the total body surface area of the scar (%TBSA) to three mVSS categories (<5, 5-10, >10). Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted kappa statistic (kw) were used to assess inter-rater reliability. The data were also analysed for clinically relevant misclassifications between pairs of raters. RESULTS: Total mVSS scores showed 'fair to good' agreement (ICC 0.65-0.73) in the 'best' area of the scar while there was 'excellent' agreement in the 'worst' scar area (ICC 0.85-0.88). The kw of the individual mVSS components ranged from 0.44 to 0.84 and 0.02 to 0.86 for 'best' and 'worst' scar areas, respectively. Determination of scar %TBSA had 'excellent' reliability (ICC 0.91-0.96). Allocation of scar %TBSA to severity category <5 mVSS demonstrated 'good to excellent' reliability (ICC 0.63-0.80) and 'fair to good' reliability (ICC 0.42-0.74) for 5-10 mVSS category. However, misclassifications were observed for the total mVSS score in the 'worst' scar area and the allocation of scar %TBSA in the <5 mVSS category. CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability of mVSS scores depends on the severity of the scar area being assessed. The mVSS-TBSA method of allocation of scar %TBSA to two broad mVSS categories, namely <5 and ≥5 mVSS, has 'good to excellent' reliability. The mVSS-TBSA has demonstrated utility for both clinical and research purposes; however, there is potential to misclassify scar outcome in some cases.

[Scars, physiology, classification and assessment]. / Cicatrices, physiologie, classification et evaluation.

A skin scar is the sign of tissue repair following damage to the skin. Once formed, it follows a process of maturation which, after several months, results in a mature scar. This can be pathological with functional and/or aesthetic consequences. It is important to assess the scar as it matures in order to adapt the treatment to its evolution.

A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use.

INTRODUCTION: Scar rating scales have the potential to contribute to better evaluation of scar properties in both research and clinical settings. Despite a large number of scars assessment scales being available, there is limited information regarding the clinimetric properties of many of these scales. The purpose of the review was to inform clinical and research practice by determining the quality and appropriateness of existing scales. This review summarises the available evidence for the clinimetric properties of reliability, validity (including responsiveness), interpretability and feasibility of existing scales. METHODS: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases from 1990 onwards were used to identify English articles related to burn scar assessment scales. Scales were critically reviewed for clinimetric properties that were reported in, but not necessarily the focus of studies. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies provided data for 18 different scar rating scales. Most scar rating scales assessed vascularity, pliability, height and thickness. Some scales contained additional items such as itch. Only the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) received a high quality rating but only in the area of reliability for total scores and the subscale vascularity. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) received indeterminate ratings for construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. Where evidence was available, all other criteria for the POSAS, VSS and the remaining 17 scales received an indeterminate rating due to methodological issues, or a low quality rating. Poorly defined hypotheses limited the ability to give a high quality rating to data pertaining to construct validity, responsiveness and interpretability. No scale had empirical testing of content validity and no scale was of sufficient quality to consider criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS: The POSAS, with high quality reliability but indeterminate validity, was considered to be superior in performance based on existing evidence. The VSS had the most thorough review of clnimetrics although available data received indeterminate quality ratings. On the basis of the evidence, the use of total scores has not been supported, nor has the measurement of pigmentation using a categorical scale.