Patient-reported scar quality in paediatric and adult burn patients: A long-term multicentre follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Burn scar maturation can take several years but is generally studied shortly after injury. Therefore, we investigated patient-reported scar quality up to 5-7 years post-burn. METHODS: Patients with ≤ 20 % total body surface area burned completed the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS 2.0) on the same scar at 3, > 18 months (median 28 months) and 5-7 years (median 63 months) post-burn. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (21 children; 37 adults) with a median total body surface area burned (TBSA) of 6.3 % participated. Average patient-reported scar quality (POSAS score) was generally worst at 3 months (median score: 4.2), best at 28 months (median score: 2.2) and intermediate at 63 months post-burn (median score: 3.4) (p < 0.001). Many patients (66 %) reported a median 1.8 point higher (worse) POSAS score at 63 months compared to 28 months post-burn, whereas 14 % reported an identical, and 21 % a lower (better) score. At any assessment, largest differences with normal skin were reported for scar colour. Univariate predictive factors of long-term patient-reported scar quality were scar quality at 3 months (p = 0.002) and 28 months post-burn (p < 0.001), full-thickness burn size (p = 0.033), length of hospital stay (p = 0.003), and number of surgeries (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of patients with burns up to 20 % TBSA scored the quality of their scars worse at 63 months compared to 28 months post-burn. Whether this corresponds to increased dissatisfaction with scars in the long term should be further investigated. These new insights add to the body of knowledge on scar maturation and underscores the importance of discussing patients' expectations.

Hydrosurgical and conventional debridement of burns: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Tangential excision of burned tissue followed by skin grafting is the cornerstone of burn surgery. Hydrosurgery has become popular for tangential excision, with the hypothesis that enhanced preservation of vital dermal tissue reduces scarring. The aim of this trial was to compare scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement before split-skin grafting. METHODS: A double-blind randomized within-patient multicentre controlled trial was conducted in patients with burns that required split-skin grafting. One wound area was randomized to hydrosurgical debridement and the other to Weck knife debridement. The primary outcome was scar quality at 12 months, assessed with the observer part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Secondary outcomes included complications, scar quality, colour, pliability, and histological dermal preservation. RESULTS: Some 137 patients were randomized. At 12 months, scars of the hydrosurgical debrided wounds had a lower POSAS observer total item score (mean 2.42 (95 per cent c.i. 2.26 to 2.59) versus 2.54 (95 per cent c.i. 2.36 to 2.72; P = 0.023)) and overall opinion score (mean 3.08 (95 per cent c.i. 2.88 to 3.28) versus 3.30 (95 per cent c.i. 3.09-3.51); P = 0.006). Patient-reported scar quality and pliability measurements were significantly better for the hydrosurgically debrided wounds. Complication rates did not differ between both treatments. Histologically, significantly more dermis was preserved with hydrosurgery (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: One year after surgery scar quality and pliability was better for hydrosurgically debrided burns, probably owing to enhanced histological preservation of dermis. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL6085 (NTR6232 (http://www.trialregister.nl)).

Patient-reported scar quality of donor-sites following split-skin grafting in burn patients: Long-term results of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Skin grafting is the current gold standard for treatment of deeper burns. How patients appraise the donor-site scar is poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of donor-site scars after split skin grafting and identify possible predictors. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were included in a Dutch burn centre during one year. Patient-reported quality of donor-site scars and their worst burn scar was assessed at 12 months using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Mixed model analyses were used to identify predictors of scar quality. RESULTS: This study included 115 donor-site scars of 72 patients with a mean TBSA burned of 11.2%. The vast majority of the donor-site scars (84.4%) were rated as having at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and the overall opinion on 80.9% of the donor-site scars was that they deviated from normal skin 12 months after surgery. The overall opinion on the donor-site scar was 3.2 ± 2.1 vs. 5.1 ± 2.4 on the burn scar. A younger age, female gender, a darker skin type, and location on the lower leg were predictors of reduced donor-site scar quality. In addition, time to re-epithelization was associated with scar quality. CONCLUSION: This study provided new insights in long-term scar quality of donor-sites. Donor-site scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the population 12 months after surgery. Results of this study can be used to inform patients on the long-term outcomes of their scars and to tailor preventive or therapeutic treatment options.

The effect of socioeconomic status on severe traumatic injury: a statistical analysis.

PURPOSE: The amount of studies performed regarding a link between socioeconomic status (SES) and fatal outcome after traumatic injury is limited. Most research is focused on work-related injuries without taking other important characteristics into account. The aim of this study is to examine the association between SES and outcome after traumatic injury. METHODS: The study involved polytrauma patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16] admitted to the Amsterdam University Medical Center (location VUmc) and Northwest Clinics Alkmaar (level 1 trauma centers). The SES of every patient was based on their postal code and represented with a "status score". Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to estimate the association between SES and mortality, length of stay at the hospital and length of stay at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Z-statistics were used to determine the difference between the expected and actual survival, based on Trauma Revised Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and PSNL15 (probability of survival based on the Dutch population). RESULTS: A total of 967 patients were included in this study. The lowest SES group was significantly associated with more penetrating injuries and a younger age (45 years versus 55 years). Additionally, severely injured patients with lower SES were noted to have a prolonged stay at the ICU. Furthermore, differences were found in the expected and observed survival, especially for the lower SES groups. CONCLUSION: Polytrauma patients with lower SES have more often penetrating injuries, are younger and have a longer stay at the ICU. No association was found between SES and length of hospital stay and neither between SES and mortality.

Burns in the elderly: a nationwide study on management and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In modern-day burn care, advanced age remains an important predictor for mortality among burn victims. In this study, we compared the complete treatment trajectory (including pre-hospital and surgical treatment) and the outcomes between an elderly burn population and a younger adult burn population. METHODS: In this nationwide study, data from the Dutch Burn Repository were used. This is a uniform national registration for Dutch specialized burn care. All adult patients that were admitted to one of the three Dutch burn centres from the period 2009 to 2015 were included in the analysis. Burn patients were considered as elderly when ≥65 years of age, and were then further subdivided into three age categories: 65-74, 75-85 and 85+ years. Younger adults in the age category 18-64 years were used as the reference group.Surgical management was studied comprehensively and included timing of surgery, the number of procedures and details on the surgical technique, especially the technique used for debridement and the grafting technique that was applied.For the comparison of clinical outcome, the following parameters were included: mortality, wound infections, length of stay/TBSA (total body surface area) burned, discharge disposition and secondary reconstructions. RESULTS: During the study period, 3155 adult patients were included (elderly, n = 505). Burn severity, reflected by the median TBSA, varied between 3.2-4.0% and was comparable, but aetiology and pre-hospital care were different between elderly and the younger adult reference group.Surgical treatment was initiated significantly faster in elderly burn patients (p < 0.001). Less selective techniques for surgical debridement were used in the elderly burns patients (hydrosurgery, 42.0% vs 23.5-22.6%), and on the other hand more avulsion (5.3% vs 7.3-17.6%) and primary wound closure (6.7% vs 24.5%). The most frequently used grafting technique was meshed skin grafts (79.2-88.6%); this was not related to age.Mortality increased rapidly with a higher age and showed a high peak in the 85+ category (23.8%). Furthermore, considerable differences were found in hospital discharge disposition between the elderly and the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, elderly burn patients who require specialized burn care are vulnerable and medically challenging. Differences in aetiology, comorbidity, physiology and the management prior to admission possibly affect the initial surgical management and result in significantly worse outcomes in elderly. Elderly patients need optimal, timely and specialized burn care to enhance survival after burn injuries.

Course of scar quality of donor sites following split skin graft harvesting: Comparison between patients and observers.

There exists little to no data on the development of donor-site scars that remain after split skin graft harvesting. The objectives of this study were to (a) examine changes in characteristics of donor-site scar quality over time and (b) assess the agreement between patient-reported and observer-reported donor-site scar quality in a burn population. A prospective cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent split skin grafting for their burn injury. Patients and observers completed the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for the first harvested donor site at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. This study included 80 patients with a median age of 34 years. At 3 months post-surgery, the patients scored the POSAS items itch and color as most deviant from normal skin, both improved between 3 and 12 months (3.1 vs 1.5 and 5.0 vs 3.5, respectively [P < .001]). Other scar characteristics did not show significant change over time. The patients' overall opinion score improved from 3.9 to 3.2 (P < .001). Observers rated the items vascularization and pigmentation most severe, only vascularization improved significantly between both time points. Their overall opinion score decreased from 2.7 to 2.3 (P < .001). The inter-observer agreement between patients and observers was considered poor (ICC < 0.4) at both time points. Results of current study indicate that observers underestimate the impact of donor-site scars. This has to be kept in mind while guiding therapy and expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, prospective cohort study.

Long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Deep dermal burns require tangential excision of non-viable tissue and skin grafting to improve wound healing and burn-scar quality. Tangential excision is conventionally performed with a knife, but during the last decade hydrosurgery has become popular as a new tool for tangential excision. Hydrosurgery is generally thought to be a more precise and controlled manner of burn debridement leading to preservation of viable tissue and, therefore, better scar quality. Although scar quality is considered to be one of the most important outcomes in burn surgery today, no randomized controlled study has compared the effect of these two common treatment modalities with scar quality as a primary outcome. The aim of this study is, therefore, to compare long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional tangential excision in deep dermal burns. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, intra-patient, controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centers of Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen. All patients with deep dermal burns that require excision and grafting are eligible. Exclusion criteria are: a burn wound < 50 cm2, total body surface area (TBSA) burned > 30%, full-thickness burns, chemical or electrical burns, infected wounds (clinical symptoms in combination with positive wound swabs), insufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language, patients that are unlikely to comply with requirements of the study protocol and follow-up, and patients who are (temporarily) incompetent because of sedation and/or intubation. A total of 137 patients will be included. Comparable wound areas A and B will be appointed, randomized and either excised conventionally with a knife or with the hydrosurgery system. The primary outcome is scar quality measured by the observer score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS); a subjective scar-assessment instrument, consisting of two separate six-item scales (observer and patient) that are both scored on a 10-point rating scale. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the optimal surgical treatment of patients with deep dermal burn wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR6232 . Registered on 23 January 2017.

Long-term scar quality in burns with three distinct healing potentials: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

The laser Doppler imager is used in cases of indeterminate burn depth to accurately predict wound healing time at an early stage. The laser Doppler imager classifies burns into three estimated healing potentials as follows: high, <14 days; intermediate, 14-21 days; and low, >21 days. At this time, the relationship between these healing potentials and long-term scar quality is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term scar quality of burns with three distinct healing potentials. The secondary objectives were to compare treatment strategies in intermediate wounds, to study the effect of the timing of surgery on low healing potential wounds and to identify predictors of reduced scar quality. Hence, in a prospective cohort study, scar quality was determined in patients whose burns were assessed with laser Doppler imaging. Scar Quality was assessed with objective and subjective measurement tools, including overall scar quality (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) as a primary outcome and color and elasticity parameters. A total of 141 patients (>19 months postburn) with 216 scars were included. Wounds with high and intermediate healing potential did not significantly differ regarding scar quality. Wounds with a low healing potential had a significantly lower scar quality. Analysis of 76 surgically treated low healing potential wounds showed no significant differences in the primary outcome regarding the timing of surgery (≤14 days vs. >14). Predictors of reduced long-term scar quality were darker skin type and multiple surgeries. In conclusion, scar quality was strongly related to the healing potential category. Scar quality was very similar in high and intermediate healing potential wounds. No positive effects were found on scar quality or on healing time in surgically treated wounds with intermediate healing potential, advocating a conservative approach. Further studies should focus on the optimal timing of surgery in low healing potential wounds.

The reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Oxford elbow score.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford elbow score (OES) is an English questionnaire that measures the patients' subjective experience of elbow surgery. The OES comprises three domains: elbow function, pain, and social-psychological effects. This questionnaire can be completed by the patient and used as an outcome measure after elbow surgery. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the Dutch version of the translated OES for reliability, validity and responsiveness with respect to patients after elbow trauma and surgery. METHODS: The 12 items of the English-language OES were translated into Dutch and then back-translated; the back-translated questionnaire was then compared to the original English version. The OES Dutch version was completed by 69 patients (group A), 60 of whom had an elbow luxation, four an elbow fracture and five an epicondylitis. QuickDASH, the visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) were also completed to examine the convergent validity of the OES in group A. To calculate the test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the OES, this questionnaire was completed three times by 43 different patients (group B). An average of 52 days elapsed between therapy and the administration of the third OES (SD = 24.1). RESULTS: The Cronbach's α coefficients for the function, pain and social-psychological domains were 0.90, 0.87 and 0.90, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficients for the domains were 0.87 for function, 0.89 for pain and 0.87 for social-psychological. The standardised response means for the domains were 0.69, 0.46 and 0.60, respectively, and the minimal detectable changes were 27.6, 21.7 and 24.0, respectively. The convergent validity for the function, pain and social-psychological domains, which were measured as the Spearman's correlation of the OES domains with the MEPI, were 0.68, 0.77 and 0.77, respectively. The Spearman's correlations of the OES domains with QuickDASH were -0.43, -0.44 and -0.47, respectively, and the Spearman's correlations with the VAS were -0.33, -0.38 and -0.42, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch OES is a reliable and valid 12-item questionnaire that can be completed within several minutes by patients with elbow injuries. This Dutch questionnaire was useful as an outcome measure in patients with elbow trauma.