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

Ultrasound measurement of traumatic scar and skin thickness: a scoping review of evidence across the translational pipeline of research-to-practice

OBJECTIVES

To identify the ultrasound methods used in the literature to measure traumatic scar thickness, and map gaps in the translation of these methods using evidence across the research-to-practice pipeline.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic database searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Web of Science. Grey literature searches were conducted in Google. Searches were conducted from inception (date last searched 27 May 2022).

DATA EXTRACTION

Records using brightness mode (B-mode) ultrasound to measure scar and skin thickness across the research-to-practice pipeline of evidence were included. Data were extracted from included records pertaining to: methods used; reliability and measurement error; clinical, health service, implementation and feasibility outcomes; factors influencing measurement methods; strengths and limitations; and use of measurement guidelines and/or frameworks.

RESULTS

Of the 9309 records identified, 118 were analysed (n=82 articles, n=36 abstracts) encompassing 5213 participants. Reporting of methods used was poor. B-mode, including high-frequency (ie, >20 MHz) ultrasound was the most common type of ultrasound used (n=72 records; 61% of records), and measurement of the combined epidermal and dermal thickness (n=28; 24%) was more commonly measured than the epidermis or dermis alone (n=7, 6%). Reliability of ultrasound measurement was poorly reported (n=14; 12%). The scar characteristics most commonly reported to be measured were epidermal oedema, dermal fibrosis and hair follicle density. Most records analysed (n=115; 97%) pertained to the early stages of the research-to-practice pipeline, as part of research initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of evaluation of measurement initiatives in routine clinical practice was identified as an evidence gap. Diverse methods used in the literature identified the need for greater standardisation of ultrasound thickness measurements. Findings have been used to develop nine methodological considerations for practitioners to guide methods and reporting.

Treatment of post-burn pruritus - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-burn pruritus is one of the most common complaints reported by patients with limited evidence for a gold-standard treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature and assess the efficacy of various interventions in treating post-burn pruritus.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, Ovid Databases, and ClinicalTrials.Gov were searched. The articles were scored by two assessors for inclusion with a third independent assessor resolving conflicting scores.

RESULTS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised findings from a total of nine studies, representing a pool of 323 patients. The standardized mean effect size for the various categories of interventions was: naltrexone at 1.47 (95 % CI of 0.75-2.20, p < 0.0000), coverings at 0.94 (95 % CI of 0.40-1.48, p = 0.006), topical ozonated oil at 2.64 (95 % CI of 1.94-3.34, p < 0.00001), lasers at 2.34 (95 % CI of 1.60-3.09, p < 0.00001), current stimulation at 1.03 (95 % CI of -0.04 to 2.10, p = 0.06), and lemon balm tea at 0.54 (95% CI of 0.12-0.96, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that current modalities have a statistically significant, but not clinically significant, reduction in pruritus. This review highlights the limited quality of evidence in the literature and the poor quality of reporting among excluded studies.

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.

Scars

Wound healing occurs as a response to disruption of the epidermis and dermis. It is an intricate and well-orchestrated response with the goal to restore skin integrity and function. However, in hundreds of millions of patients, skin wound healing results in abnormal scarring, including keloid lesions or hypertrophic scarring. Although the underlying mechanisms of hypertrophic scars and keloid lesions are not well defined, evidence suggests that the changes in the extracellular matrix are perpetuated by ongoing inflammation in susceptible individuals, resulting in a fibrotic phenotype. The lesions then become established, with ongoing deposition of excess disordered collagen. Not only can abnormal scarring be debilitating and painful, it can also cause functional impairment and profound changes in appearance, thereby substantially affecting patients' lives. Despite the vast demand on patient health and the medical society, very little progress has been made in the care of patients with abnormal scarring. To improve the outcome of pathological scarring, standardized and innovative approaches are required.

Efficacy and Safety of Pressure Therapy Alone and in Combination with Silicone in Prevention of Hypertrophic Scars: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

At present, there are many kinds of hypertrophic scar treatment methods, among which pressure therapy and silicone therapy are very common and standard therapies, but whether they are used alone or in combination is still controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of pressure therapy and silicone therapy (PTS) with pressure therapy alone (PT) in the treatment of hypertrophic scars to provide clinicians with information so that they can make better decisions.

METHODS

Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected by searching PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to assess scar scores (The Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS; Visual Analog Scale, VAS) and adverse effects.

RESULTS

We screened 1270 articles and included 6 RCTs including 228 patients. We found that height (MD = 0.15, 95%CI 0.10-0.21, p < 0.01) and pliability (MD = 0.35, 95%CI 0.25-0.46, p <0.01) had a significant difference, these two measures showed that the PTS group was superior to the PT group. Results in other aspects, such as VSS, vascularity, pigmentation, VAS, and adverse effects were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between PTS and PT in the overall treatment efficacy of hypertrophic scars with similar VSS and adverse effects, but PTS might have potential benefits for height and pliability. Additional studies with larger sample size and sound methodological quality are needed to confirm our conclusions. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Occlusion and hydration of scars: moisturizers versus silicone gels

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of non-invasive scar management, consists of pressure therapy with customized pressure garments often combined with inlays, hydration by means of silicones and/or moisturizers as well as UV protection. It is generally accepted that scar dehydration resulting from impaired barrier function of the stratum corneum and expressed by raised trans epidermal water loss (TEWL) values, can lead to increased fibroblast activity and thereby hypertrophic scar formation. However, we have reached no consensus on exactly what optimal scar hydration is nor on barrier function repair: by means of silicone sheets, liquid silicone gels or moisturizers. Occlusive silicone sheets almost completely prevent TEWL and have been shown to be effective. Nevertheless, many important disadvantages due to excessive occlusion such as difficulties in applying the sheets exceeding 10-12 h, pruritus, irritation, and maceration of the skin are limiting factors for its use. To avoid these complications and to facilitate the application, liquid silicone gels were developed. Despite a reduced occlusion, various studies have shown that the effects are comparable to these of the silicone sheets. However, major limiting factors for general use are the long drying time, the shiny aspect after application, and the high cost especially when used for larger scars. Based on excellent clinical results after using three specific moisturizers for scar treatment in our patients, we wanted to investigate whether these moisturizers induce comparable occlusion and hydration compared to both each other and the widely recognized liquid silicone gels. We wanted to provide a more scientific basis for the kind of moisturizers that can be used as a full-fledged and cost-effective alternative to silicone gel.

METHODS

A total of 36 healthy volunteers participated in this study. Increased TEWL was created by inducing superficial abrasions by rigorous (20x) skin stripping with Corneofix® adhesive tape in squares of 4 cm². Three moisturizers and a fluid silicone gel were tested: DermaCress, Alhydran, Lipikar and BAP Scar Care silicone gel respectively. TEWL reducing capacities and both absolute (AAH) and cumulative (CAAH) absolute added hydration were assessed using a Tewameter® TM300 and a Corneometer® CM825 at different time points for up to 4 h after application.

RESULTS

We found an immediate TEWL increase in all the zones that underwent superficial abrasions by stripping. Controls remained stable over time, relative to the ambient condition. The mean percentage reduction (MPR) in TEWL kept increasing over time with Alhydran and DermaCress, reaching a maximum effect 4 h after application. Silicone gel reached maximal MPR almost immediately after application and only declined thereafter. The silicone gel never reached the minimal MPR of Alhydran or DermaCress. Hydration capacity assessed through CAAH as measured by the Corneometer was significantly less with silicone gel compared to the moisturizers. Compared to silicone gel Lipikar provided similar occlusion and the improvement in hydration was highly significant 4 h after application.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of both our previous research and this study it is clearly demonstrated that the occlusive and hydrative effect of fluid silicone gel is inferior to the moisturizers used in our center. Lipikar hydrates well but is less suitable for scar treatment due to the lack of occlusion. A well-balanced occlusion and hydration, in this study only provided by Alhydran and DermaCress, suggests that moisturizers can be used as a scar hydration therapy that replaces silicone products, is more cost-effective and has a more patient-friendly application.

Management of non-severe burn wounds in children and adolescents: optimising outcomes through all stages of the patient journey

Paediatric burn injuries are common, especially in children younger than 5 years, and can lead to poor physical and psychosocial outcomes in the long term. In this Review, we aim to summarise the key factors and interventions before hospital admission and following discharge that can improve the long-term outcomes of paediatric burns. Care can be optimised through first aid treatment, correct initial assessment of burn severity, and appropriate patient referral to a burns centre. Scar prevention or treatment and patient follow-up after discharge are also essential. As most burn injuries in children are comparatively small and readily survivable, this Review does not cover the perioperative management associated with severe burns that require fluid resuscitation, or inhalational injury. Burns disproportionately affect children from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those living in low-income and middle-income countries, with ample evidence to suggest that there remains scope for low-cost interventions to improve care for those patients with the greatest burden of burn injury. Current knowledge gaps and future research directions are discussed.