Mechanomodulation of Burn Scarring Via Pressure Therapy

Influence of Moisturizers on Skin Microcirculation: An Assessment Study Using Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging

Non-invasive scar management typically involves pressure therapy, hydration with silicones or moisturizers, and UV protection. Moisture loss from scars can lead to hypertrophic scar formation. Pressure therapy reduces blood flow, fibroblast activity, and transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) release. This study examined various moisturizers and liquid silicone gel's impact on microcirculation. 40 volunteers participated in a study where superficial abrasions were created to induce trans epidermal water loss (TEWL). Five moisturizers (TEDRA®, TEDRA® NT1, TEDRA® NT3, Alhydran®, Lipikar®) and BAP Scar Care® silicone gel were tested. TEWL, hydration, and blood flow were measured up to 4 h post-application. Results showed that silicone had the least impact on occlusion and hydration. Alhydran® reduced blood flow the most, while Lipikar® increased it the most. TEDRA® NT1 had reduced flow compared to TEDRA® and TEDRA® NT3. All TEDRA® products exhibited high hydration, and all but silicone showed good occlusion. Moisturizers influenced skin microcirculation, with some causing decrease, while others increased flow. However, the clinical impact on scarring remains unclear compared to the evident effects of hydration and occlusion. More research is necessary to study moisturizers alone and with pressure therapy on scars, along with potential adverse effects of increased microcirculation on scars.

Pressure therapy for scars: Myth or reality? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hypertrophic scarring is a deviate occurrence after wound closure and is a common burn sequela. The mainstay of scar treatment consists of a trifold approach: hydration, UV-protection and the use of pressure garments with or without extra paddings or inlays to provide additional pressure. Pressure therapy has been reported to induce a state of hypoxia and to reduce the expression pattern of transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1), therefore limiting the activity of fibroblasts. However, pressure therapy is said to be largely based on empirical evidence and a lot of controversy concerning the effectiveness still prevails. Many variables influencing its effectivity, such as adherence to treatment, wear time, wash frequency, number of available pressure garment sets and amount of pressure remain only partially understood. This systematic review aims to give a complete and comprehensive overview of the currently available clinical evidence of pressure therapy.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles concerning the use of pressure therapy in the treatment and prevention of scars was performed in 3 different databases (Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library) according to the PRISMA statement. Only case series, case-control studies, cohort studies, and RCTs were included. The qualitative assessment was done by 2 separate reviewers with the appropriate quality assessment tools.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1458 articles. After deduplication and removal of ineligible records, 1280 records were screened on title and abstract. Full text screening was done for 23 articles and ultimately 17 articles were included. Comparisons between pressure or no pressure, low vs high pressure, short vs long duration and early vs late start of treatment were investigated.

CONCLUSION

There is sufficient evidence that indicates the value of prophylactic and curative use of pressure therapy for scar management. The evidence suggests that pressure therapy is capable of improving scar color, thickness, pain, and scar quality in general. Evidence also recommends commencing pressure therapy prior to 2 months after injury, and using a minimal pressure of 20-25 mmHg. To be effective, treatment duration should be at least 12 months and even preferably up to 18-24 months. These findings were in line with the best evidence statement by Sharp et al. (2016).

Electrospun Naringin-Loaded Fibers for Preventing Scar Formation during Wound Healing

Hypertrophic scars (HTSs) are aberrant structures that develop where skin is injured complexly and represent the result of a chronic inflammation as a healing response. To date, there is no satisfactory prevention option for HTSs, which is due to the complexity of multiple mechanisms behind the formation of these structures. The present work aimed to propose Biofiber (Biodegradable fiber), an advanced textured electrospun dressing, as a suitable solution for HTS formation in complex wounds. Biofiber has been designed as a 3-day long-term treatment to protect the healing environment and enhance wound care practices. Its textured matrix consists of homogeneous and well-interconnected Poly-L-lactide-co-poly-ε-caprolactone (PLA-PCL) electrospun fibers (size 3.825 ± 1.12 µm) loaded with Naringin (NG, 2.0% w/w), a natural antifibrotic agent. The structural units contribute to achieve an optimal fluid handling capacity demonstrated through a moderate hydrophobic wettability behavior (109.3 ± 2.3°), and a suitable balance between absorbency (389.8 ± 58.16%) and moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR, 2645 ± 60.43 g/m2 day). The flexibility and conformability of Biofiber to the body surfaces is due to its innovative circular texture, that also allow it to obtain finer mechanical properties after 72 h in contact with Simulated Wound Fluid (SWF), with an elongation of 352.6 ± 36.10%, and a great tenacity (0.25 ± 0.03 Mpa). The ancillary action of NG results in a prolonged anti-fibrotic effect on Normal Human Dermal Fibroblasts (NHDF), through the controlled release of NG for 3 days. The prophylactic action was highlighted at day 3 with the down regulation of the major factors involved in the fibrotic process: Transforming Growth Factor β1 (TGF-β1), Collagen Type 1 alpha 1 chain (COL1A1), and α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA). No significant anti-fibrotic effect has been demonstrated on Hypertrophic Human Fibroblasts derived from scars (HSF), proving the potential of Biofiber to minimize HTSs in the process of early wound healing as a prophylactic therapy.

Skin scarring: Latest update on objective assessment and optimal management

Although skin scarring is considered by some to be a minor, unavoidable consequence in response to skin injury, for many patients, cosmetically unsightly scars may cause uncomfortable symptoms and loss of function plus significant psycho-social distress. Despite their high prevalence and commonality, defining skin scars and their optimal management has proven problematic. Therefore, a literature search to assess the current evidence-base for scarring treatment options was conducted, and only those deemed Levels of Evidence 1 or 2 were included. Understanding the spectrum of skin scarring in the first instance is imperative, and is mainly comprised of four distinct endotypes; Stretched (flat), Contracted, Atrophic, and Raised for which the acronym S.C.A.R. may be used. Traditionally, scar assessment and response to therapy has employed the use of subjective scar scales, although these are now being superseded by non-invasive, objective and quantitative measurement devices. Treatment options will vary depending on the specific scar endotype, but fall under one of 3 main categories: (1) Leave alone, (2) Non-invasive, (3) Invasive management. Non-invasive (mostly topical) management of skin scarring remains the most accessible, as many formulations are over-the-counter, and include silicone-based, onion extract-based, and green tea-based, however out of the 52 studies identified, only 28 had statistically significant positive outcomes. Invasive treatment options includes intralesional injections with steroids, 5-FU, PDT, and laser with surgical scar excision as a last resort especially in keloid scar management unless combined with an appropriate adjuvant therapy. In summary, scar management is a rapidly changing field with an unmet need to date for a structured and validated approach.