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-ß1) 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-ß1 (TGF-ß1), 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).

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.