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.

Comparison of the Cosmetic Efficacy of Extractum Cepae and Silicone-Based Gel in Upper Blepharoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Upper eyelid blepharoplasty is one of the most common surgeries performed worldwide. However, an important problem after surgery is scar formation. The authors aimed to compare the efficacy of extractum cepae and silicone-based gels on postoperative scar appearance in patients undergoing upper eyelid blepharoplasty. METHODS: After suture removal, patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 [n=82, extractum cepae, sodium heparin, and allantoin mixture, Contractubex Gel (Merz Pharmaceuticals, Frankfurt, Germany)], group 2 [n=81, silicone-based gel (Dermatix Ultra Silicone Gel, Menarini, Singapore)], and group 3 (n=77, no additional treatment). Patients used the topical gels twice daily. All evaluations were performed on color photographs by 2 physicians during the postoperative first and third months. RESULTS: The mean visual analog scale scores were significantly higher in all 3 groups in the postoperative first month (4.39±2.03, 4.41±2.57, and 4.33±2.46, respectively) compared with the postoperative third month (2.22±1.24, 2.15±1.38, and 2.29±1.47, respectively) ( P =0.014, 0.037, and 0.026, respectively). The "Is the scar more stiff" score was higher in the postoperative first month compared with the third month. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, blepharoplasty scars improved up to the postoperative third month, but the topical gels used did not significantly improve the cosmetic appearance of blepharoplasty scars compared with the control group.

Silicone gel sheeting for treating keloid scars.

BACKGROUND: Keloid scarring is one of the most common types of pathological scarring. Keloid scars that fail to heal can affect a person's physical and psychological function by causing pain, pruritus, contractures, and cosmetic disfigurement. Silicone gel sheeting (SGS) is made from medical-grade silicone reinforced with a silicone membrane backing and is one of the most commonly used treatments for keloid scars. However, there is no up-to-date systematic review assessing the effectiveness of SGS for keloid scars. A clear and rigorous review of current evidence is required to guide clinicians, healthcare managers and people with keloid scarring. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of silicone gel sheeting for the treatment of keloid scars compared with standard care or other therapies. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people with any keloid scars and assessed the effectiveness of SGS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence. We resolved initial disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes were 16 and 20 participants. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in causes for scarring (e.g. surgery, infected wounds, and trauma), site (e.g. chest and back), and ages of scars. The duration of follow-up was three and four and a half months. The included studies reported three comparisons; SGS compared with no treatment, SGS compared with non-silicone gel sheeting (a dressing similar to SGS but which does not contain silicone), and SGS compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide. One trial had a split-body design and one trial had an unclear design (resulting in a mix of paired and clustered data). The included studies reported limited outcome data for the primary review outcome of scar severity measured by health professionals and no data were reported for severity of scar measured by patients or adverse events. For secondary outcomes some data on pain were reported, but health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were not reported. Both trials had suboptimal outcome reporting, thus many domains in the risk of bias were assessed as unclear. All evidence was rated as being very low-certainty, mainly due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.  SGS compared with no treatment Two studies with 33 participants (76 scars) reported the severity of scar assessed by health professionals, and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for inconsistency, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). We are uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with no treatment (21 participants with 40 scars; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for inconsistency, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. SGS compared with non-SGS One study with 16 participants (25 scars) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity assessed by health professionals compared with non-SGS (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). We are also uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with non-SGS (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. SGS compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide One study with 17 participants (51 scars) reported scar severity assessed by health professionals, and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). This study also reported pain assessed by health professionals among 5 participants (15 scars) and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and twice for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of RCT evidence about the clinical effectiveness of SGS in the treatment of keloid scars. From the two studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of SGS compared with no treatment, non-SGS, or intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide makes any difference in the treatment of keloid scars. Evidence from the included studies is of very low certainty, mainly driven by the risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision due to small sample size. Further well-designed studies that have good reporting methodologies and address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are required to reduce uncertainty around decision-making in the use of SGS to treat keloid scars.

Comparison of LeniScar Silicone Stick (AnsCare) With Traditional Silicone Gel (Dermatix Ultra) in Wound Scar Prevention and Removal.

BACKGROUND: As we all know, the numbers of aesthetic surgery are increasing around the world. After the surgery, the scar would be a problematic issue for both the surgeons and the patients. Silicone has proven to be effective for keloids, hypertrophic scars, and prevention of scar formation in many literatures for a long time. In terms of scar prevention, silicone has been used in the form of silicone sheets in early times, which is later improved to be the form of silicone gel with the advantage of easier usage. Although silicone gel has improved greatly in the aspect of appearance and convenience of the silicone sheets, there are still some disadvantages of the gel form. Therefore, the LeniScar silicone stick (AnsCare) is invented. OBJECTIVE: This article aimed to compare the results of scar treatment and prevention of the AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick versus the traditional silicone gel (Dermatix Ultra). METHODS: This study was a prospective, nonblinded, randomized clinical study. There were a total of 68 patients from September 2018 to January 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups with AnsCare (n = 43) and Dermatix (n = 25), who both were required to schedule regular outpatient clinic follow-up, and photographs were taken before use, 1, 2, and 3 months later after the usage for the record. The physician assessed the scar condition by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The scores of the VSS were further analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The overall P value of total score of VSS was 0.635, which indicates that there is no significant difference in using AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick versus Dermatix Ultra silicone gel in terms of scar prevention and treatment. Individual items of VSS such as pliability, height, vascularity, and pigmentation all show no significant statistical difference in the 2 treatment products, with P = 0.980, 0.778, 0.528, and 0.366, respectively. CONCLUSION: Traditional Dermatix Ultra silicone gel has been effective in the treatment of scar formation. AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick is statistically not different from the Dermatix Ultra silicone gel when comparing the treatment results of scar prevention. Furthermore, the AnsCare LeniScar Silicone Stick has the advantages of being time-saving with no need to wait for it to dry and application of precise amount to precise location, preventing waste or overuse.

A systematic review of the management of postoperative scars with silicone gel-based products in randomized controlled trials.

Although postoperative scarring may be considered a cosmetic concern, it can greatly impact a patient's quality of life. This extends beyond psychosocial burden influenced by hypertrophic scars and keloids, as patients also experience discomfort and pain. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of silicone gel (SG)-based products in preventing postoperative abnormal scar formation. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a PubMed search was performed to find randomized, controlled trials investigating the effect of SG-based products on postoperative wound healing. The search yielded 359 publications, but only 30 studies published between 1991-2022 were found to fit the inclusion criteria. Outcomes were extracted from the literature and subsequent quality and risk of bias assessments were performed. Most studies indicated improvement of at least one quality of the scar with the use of SG-based products. The greatest potential variable increasing bias was an inadequate control group. Studies also suffered from small sample sizes, use of unvalidated scar assessment scales, lack of double-blinding, and short follow-up periods. Overall, SG-based products demonstrated potential in preventing abnormal scar formation during postoperative healing, but further studies are required to validate the results of current literature.

Glucocorticosteroid and Silicone Gel During Patch Application Without Clinical Scar Improvement After Central Venous Catheter Removal: A Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We studied whether glucocorticosteroid during patch occlusion has a beneficial effect on scar outcome in children and adolescents treated for cancer. METHODS: A double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was performed. The main outcome was the Vancouver Scar Scale. Secondary outcomes were scar width and scar quality measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. The patients were divided into an intervention groups and a control group. The intervention group was randomized into active and placebo group. The active treatment consisted of cream with glucocorticosteroid and fusidic acid. The placebo treatment consisted of cream with fusidic acid. Both groups received silicone gel patch after central venous catheter removal. The control group received no specific skin care. RESULTS: Assessment at 12 months showed that the intervention group had a significantly lower Vancouver Scar Scale and a smaller scar (0,1 cm) compared with the control group ( P =0.00, P =0.02) but no benefit of glucocorticosteroid. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale showed no significant difference between the intervention and control groups ( P =0.84, P =0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Silicone gel sheet alone or in combination with application of glucocorticosteroid during sheet occlusion does not clinically improve scar outcome after removal of central venous catheter in children treated for neoplastic diseases.

Silicone gel sheeting for treating hypertrophic scars.

BACKGROUND: Each year, in high-income countries alone, approximately 100 million people develop scars. Excessive scarring can cause pruritus, pain, contractures, and cosmetic disfigurement, and can dramatically affect people's quality of life, both physically and psychologically. Hypertrophic scars are visible and elevated scars that do not spread into surrounding tissues and that often regress spontaneously. Silicone gel sheeting (SGS) is made from medical-grade silicone reinforced with a silicone membrane backing and is one of the most commonly used treatments for hypertrophic scars. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of silicone gel sheeting for the treatment of hypertrophic scars in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any hypertrophic scars and assessed the use of SGS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence. We resolved initial disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes ranged from 10 to 60 participants. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in duration of follow-up, and scar site. We report 10 comparisons, SGS compared with no SGS treatment and SGS compared with the following treatments: pressure garments; silicone gel; topical onion extract; polyurethane; propylene glycol and hydroxyethyl cellulose sheeting; Kenalog injection; flashlamp-pumped pulsed-dye laser; intense pulsed light  and Gecko Nanoplast (a silicone gel bandage). Six trials had a split-site design and three trials had an unclear design (resulting in a mix of paired and clustered data). Included studies reported limited outcome data for the primary review outcomes of severity of scarring measured by health professionals and adverse events (limited data reported by some included studies, but further analyses of these data was not possible) and no data were reported for severity of scarring reported by patients. For secondary outcomes some pain data were reported, but health-related quality of life and cost effectiveness were not reported. Many trials had poorly-reported methodology, meaning the risk of bias was unclear. We rated all evidence as being either of low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, all in single studies. SGS compared with no SGS Seven studies with 177 participants compared SGS with no SGS for hypertrophic scars. Two studies with 31 participants (32 scars) reported severity of scarring assessed by health professionals, and it is uncertain whether there is a difference in severity of scarring between the two groups (mean difference (MD) -1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.77 to 0.12; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, and twice for serious imprecision). One study with 34 participants suggests SGS may result in a slight reduction in pain level compared with no SGS treatment (MD -1.26, 95% CI -2.26 to -0.26; low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision). SGS compared with pressure garments One study with 54 participants was included in this comparison. The study reported that SGS may reduce pain levels compared with pressure garments (MD -1.90, 95% CI -2.99 to -0.81;  low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision). SGS compared with silicone gel One study with 32 participants was included in this comparison. It is unclear if SGS impacts on severity of scarring assessed by health professionals compared with silicone gel (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.88 to 1.68; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision). SGS compared with topical onion extract One trial (32 participants) was included in this comparison. SGS may slightly reduce severity of scarring compared with topical onion extract (MD -1.30, 95% CI -2.58 to -0.02; low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, and once for imprecision). SGS compared with polyurethane One study with 60 participants was included in this comparison. It is unclear if SGS impacts on the severity of scarring assessed by health professionals compared with polyurethane (MD 0.50, 95% CI -2.96 to 3.96; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, and twice for imprecision). SGS compared with self-adhesive propylene glycol and hydroxyethyl cellulose sheeting One study with 38 participants was included in this comparison. It is uncertain if SGS reduces pain compared with self-adhesive propylene glycol and hydroxyethyl cellulose sheeting (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.06). This is very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for imprecision and once for indirectness. SGS compared with Gecko Nanoplast One study with 60 participants was included in this comparison. It is unclear if SGS impacts on pain compared with Gecko Nanoplast (MD 0.70, 95% CI  -0.28 to 1.68; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. There was a lack of reportable data from the other three comparisons of SGS with Kenalog injection, flashlamp-pumped pulsed-dye laser or intense pulsed light. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available about the clinical effectiveness of SGS in the treatment of hypertrophic scars. None of the included studies provided evidence on severity of scarring validated by participants, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias. The limitations in current RCT evidence suggest that further trials are required to reduce uncertainty around decision-making in the use of SGS to treat hypertrophic scars.

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children 12-months postburn: A parallel group randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The longer-term effectiveness of silicone and pressure burn scar interventions was evaluated at 12-months postburn. DESIGN: Parallel group, randomised trial. SETTING: Hospital outpatient clinics, research centre. PARTICIPANTS: Children referred for burn scar management following grafted or spontaneously healed acute burn injuries or scar reconstruction surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to: (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were scar thickness (blinded ultrasound measurement) and itch intensity (caregiver proxy-report, numeric rating scale). RESULTS: Of 153 participants randomised who received the interventions (silicone n = 51, pressure garment n = 49, combined n = 53), 86 were followed-up at 12-months postburn (n = 34, n = 28, n = 24). No differences were identified for the primary outcomes using intention-to-treat analysis. Scar thickness mean difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.00 cm (-0.04, 0.05); -0.03 cm (-0.07, 0.02); 0.03 cm (-0.02, 0.08) and scar itch = 0.09 (-0.88, 1.06); -0.21 (-1.21, 0.79); 0.30 (-0.73, 1.32) for silicone vs pressure; silicone vs combined and combined vs pressure respectively. No serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSION: Similar to short-term results, the combined intervention offered no statistically or clinically significant benefit for improving the primary outcomes compared to each intervention alone. No differences in the primary outcomes were identified between the silicone and pressure alone groups.

Verapamil-containing silicone gel reduces scar hypertrophy.

A hypertrophic scar is a common dermal fibroproliferative lesion usually treated with topical silicone. Verapamil, a type of calcium channel blocker, is considered a candidate drug for the treatment of hypertrophic scars. Here, we report that the addition of verapamil to topical silicone gel enhances treatment outcomes of hypertrophic scars. Upon creation of hypertrophic scars with the rabbit ear model, varying concentrations of verapamil-added silicone gel (0.1, 1, and 10 mg/g) were applied daily for 28 days. After the animals were euthanised, microscopic measurement was performed for (a) scar elevation index (SEI), (b) fibroblast count, and (c) capillary count. On gross analysis, features of hypertrophic scars were significantly alleviated in the verapamil-added groups. On histologic examination, verapamil-added groups showed (a) reduced SEI (1.93 (1.79-2.67) for control vs 1.34 (1.21-1.51) for silicone only and 1.13 (1.01-1.65) for verapamil-added silicone), (b) fibroblast count 700.5 (599.5-838.5) for control, 613.25 (461-762.5) for silicone only, and 347.33 (182.5-527) for verapamil-added silicone), and (c) capillary formation (52 (35.5-96.5) for control, 46 (28-64.5) for silicone only, and 39.83(24-70) for verapamil-added silicone) (Kruskal-Wallis test, P < .05). On western blot, expression levels of collagen I protein was lower in the 1 mg/g and 10 mg/g verapamil-added silicone compared with control. Therefore, we suggest a therapeutic concentration of verapamil-added silicone gel of at least over 1 mg/g. Further study regarding maximally effective concentration and deeper insight into the mechanism of action should follow.

Comparison of Silicone Sheets and Paper Tape for the Management of Postoperative Scars: A Randomized Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of silicone sheets and paper tape in the prevention of postoperative cesarean section scars. METHODS: Patients undergoing horizontal cesarean section were included in this randomized controlled trial. Surgical wounds were divided into two halves. Patients randomly applied silicone sheets or paper tape to each side of their wound as assigned for 3 months. Wounds were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Researchers used the objective Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) to evaluate the scars and the subjective visual analog scale (VAS) to evaluate itch, pain, and scar appearance. RESULTS: No significant differences between the silicone sheet and paper tape groups were noted at postoperative follow-ups with respect to VSS scores. The silicone sheet group had significantly better VAS scores for scar appearance than the paper tape group at 6 (6.81 ± 1.47 vs 6.19 ± 1.62, P = .03) and 12 (6.88 ± 2.01 vs 6.2 ± 2.08, P = .04) months' follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The silicone sheet group showed statistically significant differences in comparison with the paper tape group in terms of scar appearance as determined by the VAS. However, the differences were too small to be clinically meaningful.

Efficacy of topical silicone gel in scar management: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

To assess the efficacy of topical silicone gel in the management of scars, we conducted this meta-analysis. The systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, and six randomised controlled trials with a total of 375 patients were involved. The outcome data of Vancouver Scar Scale were extracted from the studies and their effect sizes were calculated using Review Manager 5.3. As a result, topical silicone gel significantly reduced pigmentation, height, and pliability scores postoperatively compared with placebos or no treatment (Pigmentation: standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.55 [-0.83 to -0.26], P = .0002; Height: SMD = -0.73 [-1.02 to -0.44], P < .00001; Pliability: SMD = -0.49 [-0.95 to -0.03], P = .04). Topical silicone gel and silicone gel sheet were comparably effective (P > .05). The performance of topical silicone gel and other non-silicone topical treatment was also similar (P > .05). In summary, topical silicone gel was effective in post-operative scar prevention.

Intense pulsed light vs silicone gel sheet in the management of hypertrophic scars: an interventional comparative trial in the Indian population.

Introduction: Hypertrophic scars are abnormal scars that are a source of great functional, psychological and financial burden to the patient. Currently available treatment modalities are either very cumbersome to use or have not provided very satisfactory results. Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy for the management of hypertrophic scars has been recently introduced. However, most of the studies available are from the Western population. In this trial, we aim to study the effect of IPL on the South Indian population with darker skin and compare it with an existing treatment modality (silicone gel sheet). Materials and Methods: This trial was an interventional clinical trial conducted from September 2015 to March 2017 on 28 patients with 65 hypertrophic scars. Each scar was divided into 2 equal parts (4.6 x 1 cm2). One half of the scar was treated to 4 sessions of 29J/cm2 of IPL at 3 weekly intervals. A silicone gel sheet (SGS) was applied over the other half and changed at 3 weekly intervals. The Vancouver scar scale was used to grade both halves of the scar before treatment, at each visit and 3 weeks after treatment completion. Results: Scars treated with IPL showed a significant reduction in the pliability (p=0.002) and hyperpigmentation (p=0.000) as compared to scars treated with SGS. Though the percentage reduction in the height of the scar was more in the IPL group (15.4% as compared to 4.6%in the SGS group), the result was not statistically significant (p<0.065). As most scars in our study showed normal vascularity at the beginning, the percentage reduction in vascularity between both groups was the same (p<0.597). The reduction in the median VSS score was more in the IPL group compared to SGS group (p=0.00). Conclusion: IPL therapy offers a safe and effective means of hypertrophic scar treatment, especially on large scars where other treatment modalities may not be feasible. Minimal side effects that occur can be prevented with proper pre, intra and post procedure cooling.

Alternative Therapies to Fat Grafting in the Craniofacial Region.

Autologous fat grafting is a technique with various applications in the craniofacial region ranging from the treatment of wounds, scars, keloids, and soft tissue deformities. In this review, alternative therapies to fat grafting are discussed. These are composed of established therapies like silicone gel or sheeting, corticosteroids, cryotherapy, and laser therapy. Novel applications of negative pressure wound therapy, botulinum toxin A injection, and biologic agents are also reviewed.

[ASSESSMENT OF COMBINED PROPHYLAXIS OF PATHOLOGICAL POSTOPERATIVE FACE SKIN SCARS ACCORDING TO THE VANCOUVER SCALE].

The aim of the research was to study the effectiveness of combined prophylaxis of pathological postoperative face skin scars according to the Vancouver scale. The research involved 29 patients, aging 16-48 years old, who underwent maxillofacial surgery by extraoral accesses with wound primary intention healing. The patients were divided into three groups: the control group, which involved the patients, who after the surgery did not undergo any preventive measures to avoid pathological skin scars development, and two study groups. The patients of the first study group underwent the monotherapy comprising three sessions of extracorporeal shock wave therapy once every 4-5 days. The patients of the second study group underwent three sessions of extracorporeal shock wave therapy once every 4-5 days and local use of silicone gel Strataderm. The Vancouver scale was used to evaluate clinically the effectiveness of the suggested methods of pathological scars development prevention. It involved evaluation (in points) of their consistency, pigmentation, and vascularization. The scars were assessed on the 7th, 30th day after the surgery and in 6 months. Positive results were attained in the patients of both study groups; they were manifested by increased elasticity and compliance of scars, pigmentation becoming of just about surrounding skin natural color, normalization of blood supply to scars, and more rapid disappearance of suture marks. However, these positive signs were more significant in the patients of the second study group that allowed us concluding that combined use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and local applying of silicone gel Strataderm was advisable.

Randomised comparison of silicone gel and onion extract gel for post-surgical scars.

To compare the efficacy of silicone gel and onion extract gel on new surgical wounds, we performed a randomised controlled trial evaluating the appearance of the laparoscopic surgical scars of 60 subjects after 12 weeks of two times daily application of either silicone gel or onion extract gel. Objective scar assessment by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Image Panel Scale (IPS) and subjective scar assessment by the Body Image Scale (BIS) and Cosmetic Scale (CS) were performed after 12 weeks of treatment. Safety was also evaluated by gathering adverse events related to application of the gel. After 12 weeks of applying the assigned gel, there were no differences between the two groups in VSS (p = .779), IPS (p = .621), BIS (p = .924), or CS (p = .843). Subject compliance and safety with the assigned gel was similar between the two study groups. Our conclusion was that silicone gel and onion extract gel had similar compliance, side effects and efficacy in making surgical scars less distinct. Impact Statement What is already known on this subject: There are commercially available, topical scar emollients for prevention of surgical scarring. Despite their popularity, data demonstrating the efficacy of these scar emollients are lacking. What do the results of this study add: After 12 weeks of applying the assigned topical scar emollients, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of cosmesis and satisfaction. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research: Silicone gel and onion extract gel had similar compliance, side effects and efficacy in making surgical scars less distinct.

Prevention of Pressure Injuries in the Operating Room: A Quality Improvement Project.

Prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) remains a crucial clinical challenge especially for those patients undergoing surgery. The purpose of this project was to examine whether a 5-layer silicone foam dressing applied to the sacrum of patients undergoing vascular surgery decreased the occurrence of sacral pressure injuries and to explore participant characteristics associated with the development of operating room (OR)-related pressure injuries. A pre-/postintervention design, quality improvement project in a convenience sample of 81 patients undergoing vascular surgery, in a 700-bed level I trauma acute care setting, in the Northeastern United States. Eighty-one patients undergoing vascular surgery participated in this project. Thirty-seven were in the preintervention group who were identified from the housewide pressure injury prevalence data from May and December 2010 and received standard pressure injury prevention while hospitalized. Forty-four patients in the intervention group were identified from a hospital-based outpatient vascular surgery office and preoperatively received the 5-layer silicone foam dressing in addition to standard care. Data were collected on the third and seventh postoperative days via the electronic medical record and paper medical records. Collected data included age, gender, comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease and, smoking status), presence of a 5-layer silicone sacral foam dressing, and pressure injury occurrence. Analysis included descriptive statistics, Fisher exact test to compare groups, and logistic regression to identify associated risk factors. More than 50% (n = 19) in the preintervention group developed a hospital-acquired pressure injury while only 1 subject (n = 2%) in the intervention group developed a hospital-acquired pressure injury (P = .000). Findings indicate that, after controlling for age, gender, and other comorbidities, application of a 5-layer silicone sacral foam dressing significantly reduced the likelihood of development of a new pressure injury (OR= 0.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.00-40; P = .006). This pre-/postquality improvement project, using a 5-layer silicone sacral foam dressing in addition to standard operating room pressure injury preventive interventions, for elective vascular surgical cases, resulted in a significant decrease in sacral operating room-related pressure injuries. These findings suggest the effectiveness of a 5-layer silicone foam dressing when added to standard preventive interventions. The findings warrant further investigation of additional preventative interventions in the OR specific to high-risk populations.

Early use of CO2 lasers and silicone gel on surgical scars: Prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Some publications have shown good aesthetic results for scars through the early application of fractional CO2 lasers on elective surgery scars. The aim of this randomized, double-blinded clinical trial was to compare the aesthetic quality of the scar from a group of patients submitted to super-pulsed fractional CO2 laser applications (10,600 nm fractional CO2 , set at a density of 20% and an energy of 10 mJ, a scanner of 03 × 03 mm, and a pulse repetition time of 0.3 seconds) in contrast with the other group that used only the silicone gel on the scar after plastic surgery. METHOD: A prospective study was conducted by analyzing 42 patients with recent scars of up to three weeks in patients with a I-IV Fitz-Patrick skin phototype. The scars were evaluated aesthetically in the second and sixth months by applying the Vancouver scale. RESULTS: At 2 months of treatment, the statistical data showed a discrete superiority in the LASER group's treatment, as compared to that of the SILICONE group, in both percentage and significance concerning flexibility (P = 0.05) and pigmentation (P = 0.01). Laser group presented better results in the sixth month (P = 0,03). CONCLUSION: The early use of the fractional CO2 laser contributed to improving the aesthetic quality of scars from elective surgeries in the second and in the 6th months. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:570-576, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Adjuncts to Improve Nasal Reconstruction Results.

The final cosmetic appearance of nasal reconstruction scars is of paramount importance to both the patient and surgeon. Ideal postreconstruction nasal scars are flat and indistinguishable from surrounding skin. Unfortunately, even with meticulous surgical execution, nasal scars can occasionally be suboptimal. Abnormal fibroblast response can lead to hypertrophic nasal scars, and excessive angiogenesis may lead to telangiectasias or an erythematous scar. Imperfect surgical closure or poor postoperative management can lead to surgical outcomes with step-offs, depressions, suture marks, or dyspigmentation. Aesthetically unacceptable nasal scars can cause pruritus, tenderness, pain, sleep disturbance, and anxiety and depression in postsurgical patients. Fortunately, there are several minimally invasive or noninvasive techniques that allow for enhancement and improvement of cosmetic results with minimal risk and associated downtime. This article provides an overview of adjuncts to improve nasal reconstruction with a focus on techniques to be used in the postoperative period. Armed with an understanding of relevant available therapies, skillful surgeons may drastically improve the final cosmesis and outcome of nasal reconstruction scars.

Successful eradication of helical rim keloids with surgical excision followed by pressure therapy using a combination of magnets and silicone gel sheeting.

Extremely limited data are available for the treatment of helical rim keloids. The purpose of the present study was to demonstrate the successful treatment of helical rim keloids using surgical exicison followed by a newly designed pressure therapy device. We treated 40 pure helical rim keloids in 36 patients with surgical excisions followed by pressure therapy using a combination of magnets and silicone gel sheeting for 12 hours over a period of 2 years, from May 2012 to February 2014, at tertiary medical centre. The follow-up period was 18 months. Primary outcome was recurrence of keloids. Secondary outcome was patient satisfaction as assessed by the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). The overall recurrence-free rate was 95·0% after a follow-up period of 18 months. Scores obtained from the POSAS showed that most items were reported to be improved. This adjuvant therapy protocol resulted in excellent outcomes in cases of helical rim keloids compared to previously published protocols.

Comparison of the effectiveness of topical silicone gel and corticosteroid cream on the pfannenstiel scar prevention - a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of topical silicone gel and corticosteroid cream for preventing hypertrophic scar and keloid formation following Pfannenstiel incisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients operated for benign gynecological diseases through primary Pfannenstiel incision were included. The wounds were randomly allocated to the treatment and control arms. In the treatment arm, the wounds were divided into two halves; one was treated with silicone gel and the other with methylprednisolone cream. No treat-ment was administered to the control group. Scars using the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (MVSS), patient satisfaction, and side effects were evaluated before and after (3rd month when treatment discontinued and 6th month) the treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (21 patients in the treatment group and 18 patients in the control group) completed the stu-dy. Intragroup comparisons of the 3rd month and 6th month scores of the MVSS revealed that the scores of all parameters (height, pigmentation, vascularity, pliability, and total MVSS score) significantly decreased at the 6th month evaluation as compared with the 3rd month evaluation in all groups (control, silicone, and methylprednisolone groups). Multiple group comparisons at the 6th month revealed that the most prominent improvements occurred in the methylprednisolone group in all MVSS parameters as compared with the control group and in the height, vascularity, and pigmentation parameters as compared with the silicone group. No side effects were experienced by the patients with either treatment and patient satisfaction was higher in the methylprednisolone group. CONCLUSION: The use of topical methylprednisolone cream in fresh wounds at the postoperative early period appears to be promising.