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.

Does the form of dressings matter?: A comparison of the efficacy in the management of postoperative scars between silicone sheets and silicone gel: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Silicone sheet is commonly used for scar management but hard to apply to irregular surfaces or mobile areas, and difficult to conceal. On the contrary, silicone gel is easy to apply and nearly unnoticeable. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare their effectiveness. METHODS: Patients undergoing horizontal cesarean section were included. Surgical wounds were divided into 2 halves. Patients randomly applied silicone sheets and silicone gel on either side of their wounds for 3 months. The wounds were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. We used the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) for an objective evaluation and the visual analog scale (VAS) for a subjective evaluation. RESULTS: There was no statistical significance between the silicone sheet and silicone gel groups with respect to VSS score. The silicone sheet group showed a statistically significant higher VAS score for itch at 1 month follow-up (1.18 ±â€Š2.04 vs 0.35 ±â€Š0.85, P = .01). However, the difference was less than 1 on a scale of 10, so it might not be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: Silicone sheet group showed statistically significant worse VAS score in terms of itch. However, the difference was too small to be clinically meaningful.

Comparison between anterolateral thigh, radial forearm, and peroneal artery flap donor site thickness in Asian patients-A sonographic study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the thicknesses of the three locations used as donor sites for radial forearm (RF), anterolateral thigh (ALT), and peroneal flaps and to determine probable contributing factors of the thickness. METHODS: This study included 201 healthy participants (mean age: 45.8 ± 17.2 years; male: 114; female: 87; BMI: 24.3 ± 4.3). Sonography was used to measure the thickness of flap donor sites. Forward stepwise regressions were conducted to determine the contributing factors of flap thickness. RESULTS: The RF flap (0.28 ± 0.08 cm) was thinner than peroneal flap (0.47 ± 0.17 cm) (P < 0.0001), and peroneal flap was thinner than ALT flap (0.98 ± 0.4 cm) (P < 0.0001). Flap type (P < 0.001, 95%CI: 0.33-0.41), BMI (P < 0.001, 95%CI: 0.02-0.033), gender (P < 0.001, 95%CI: -0.3 to -0.17), and age (P = 0.002, 95%CI: -0.005 to -0.001) were the contributing factors of flap thickness. In the subgroup analysis, BMI was the only contributing factor of RF flap thickness (P < 0.001). For ALT and peroneal flaps, age, gender, and BMI were the contributing factors (P < 0.001). The coefficient of BMI was 0.005 in RF flap, 0.01 in peroneal flap, and 0.04 in ALT flap. CONCLUSIONS: The RF flap was found thinner than peroneal flap, and peroneal flap was found thinner than ALT flap. The BMI effects on RF and peroneal flaps were much less than that on ALT flap. Therefore, the RF and peroneal flaps would be the better choice in obese patients with soft tissue defects where a thin flap is needed.