Currently known risk factors for hypertrophic skin scarring: A review.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to provide an overview of risk factors for hypertrophic scarring. BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic skin scarring remains a major concern in medicine and causes considerable morbidity. Despite extensive research on this topic, the precise mechanism of excessive scarring is still unknown. In addition, the current literature lacks an overview of the possible risk factors in the development of hypertrophic scars. METHODS: PubMed searches were performed on risk factors for hypertrophic scar (HTS) formation. RESULTS: Eleven studies suggesting nine factors associated with HTS formation were found. Studies concerning chemotherapy, age, stretch, infection, and smoking have a moderate to high strength of evidence, but some other factors have not been studied in a convincing manner or are still disputed. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for HTS formation are young age, bacterial colonization, and skin subjected to stretch. Chemotherapy, statins, and smoking seem to play a protective role in HTS formation.

Minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) does not result in less hypertrophic scar formation as compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) with dexamethasone.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary bypass surgery is associated with a systemic inflammatory response through the interaction of air, blood and synthetic components in the bypass system and the physical trauma of surgery. An alternative cardiopulmonary bypass system, minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC), has shown promising results in terms of reducing the inflammatory response. We hypothesized that this system may reduce pathological excessive scarring. To study this assumption, the effects of MECC and the effects of conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) with dexamethasone on skin scarring were compared in a standardized wound-healing model. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pre-sternal scars were evaluated prospectively at four and 12 months postoperatively. The height and width of the scars were measured, using a slide caliper and sonography. The scars were scored using the validated Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Additional risk factors for hypertrophic scar formation were identified by means of a questionnaire. During surgery, MECC was used in 45 patients and CECC/dexamethasone in 42 patients. Four months postoperatively, 22 patients of the MECC group (49%) and 18 patients in the CECC/dexamethasone group (43%) had developed hypertrophic scars. Twelve months postoperatively, the hypertrophic scars in four patients of the MECC group and in two patients of the CECC/dexamethasone group had become normotrophic. In 18 patients of the MECC group (38%) and 16 patients of the CECC group (41%) the scars remained hypertrophic at 12 months. These differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: MECC does not reduce hypertrophic scar formation compared with CECC with dexamethasone, but its use is more beneficial than the use of CECC/dexamethasone because of the circulatory and immunological advantages and because treatment with dexamethasone can be omitted.