E. Middelkoop

Prevention and curative management of hypertrophic scar formation

Although hypertrophic scarring commonly occurs following burns, many aspects such as incidence of and optimal treatment for scar hypertrophy remain unclear. This review will focus on hypertrophic scar formation after burn in particular, exploring multiple treatment options and describing their properties as well as effectiveness. To evaluate treatment efficacy and scar development, clinical scar assessment is of eminent importance. Furthermore, recommendations regarding the classification of hypertrophy in the daily practice and in clinical trials are implemented.

Biological background of dermal substitutes

Dermal substitutes are of major importance in treating full thickness skin defects, both in acute and chronic wounds. In this review we will outline specific requirements of three classes of dermal substitutes: Biological and clinical requirements will be translated to composition, physical structure, immunological properties and cell-matrix interactions of the various materials. Important properties like pore size, cell adhesion sites (e.g. RGD sequences), crosslinking, degradability and the presence of a basement membrane will be discussed for each of the different classes of materials.

Porcine wound models for skin substitution and burn treatment.

Skin regeneration is an important field of tissue engineering. Especially in larger burns and chronic wounds, present treatments are insufficient in preventing scar formation and promoting healing. Initial screening of potentially interesting products for skin substitution is usually done by in vitro tests. Before entering the clinic, however, in vivo studies in immunocompetent animals are necessary to prove efficacy and provide information on safety aspects. We have obtained extensive experience using the domestic pig as test animal for studies on skin replacement materials, including tissue engineered skin substitutes, and burn wound treatment. Two models are described: an excisional wound model for testing of dermal and epidermal substitutes and a burn wound model for contact and scald burns, which allows testing of modern wound dressings in comparison to the present gold standards in burn treatment. The results of these experiments show that in vivo testing was able to reveal (dis)advantages of the treatments which were not detected during in vitro studies.

Itching following burns: epidemiology and predictors.

Background  Itching (pruritus) following burns is a well‐known clinical problem. However, there are no long‐term prospective studies that document the course and the extent of the problem. Studies on risk factors are anecdotal.

An objective device for measuring surface roughness of skin and scars

BACKGROUND Scar formation remains a major clinical problem; therefore, various therapies have been developed to improve scar quality. To evaluate the effectiveness of these therapies, objective measurement tools are necessary. An appropriate, objective measuring instrument for assessment of surface roughness is not yet available in a clinical setting. The Phaseshift Rapid In Vivo Measurement of the Skin (PRIMOS) (GFMesstechnik GmbH, Teltow, Germany) could be such an instrument. This device noninvasively produces a 3-dimensional image of the skin microtopography and measures surface roughness. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the PRIMOS for objective and quantitative measurement of surface roughness of skin and scars. METHODS Three observers assessed skin and burn scars in 60 patients using the PRIMOS and a subjective scale, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Reliability was tested using the intraclass correlation of intraobserver and interobserver measurements. An intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.7 or greater was required for reliable results. To test validity, scores of the PRIMOS were compared with scores of the subjective scale (Pearson correlation). A Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.6 was considered a strong positive correlation. RESULTS All 3 surface roughness parameters of the PRIMOS showed good intraobserver and interobserver reliability for skin and scars (intraclass correlation coefficient arithmetic mean of surface roughness > 0.85, mean of 5 highest peaks and 5 deepest valleys from entire measuring field > 0.88, peak count > 0.86). The parameter arithmetic mean of surface roughness showed a strong correlation with the subjective score (Pearson arithmetic mean of surface roughness 0.70; mean of 5 highest peaks and 5 deepest valleys from entire measuring field 0.53; peak count 0.54). LIMITATIONS The reliability and validity of the PRIMOS were only tested on skin and burn scars, not in other dermatologic diseases. CONCLUSIONS The PRIMOS is a valid and reliable tool for objective noninvasive evaluation of surface roughness of both skin and burn scars.

Outcome after burns: an observational study on burn scar maturation and predictors for severe scarring.

Long‐term outcome of burn scars as well as the relation with clinically relevant parameters has not been studied quantitatively. Therefore, we conducted a detailed analysis on the clinical changes of burn scars in a longitudinal setup. In addition, we focused on the differences in scar quality in relation to the depth, etiology of the burn wound and age of the patient. Burn scars of 474 patients were subjected to a scar assessment protocol 3, 6, and 12 months postburn. Three different age groups were defined (≤5, 5–18, and ≥18 years). The observer part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale revealed a significant (p < 0.001) improvement in scar quality at 12 months compared with the 3‐ and 6‐month data. Predictors for severe scarring are depth of the wound (p < 0.001) and total body surface area burned (p < 0.001). Etiology (p = 0.753) and age (p > 0.230) have no significant influence on scar quality when corrected for sex, total body surface area burned, time, and age or etiology, respectively.

A Clinimetric Overview of Scar Assessment Scales

Standardized validated evaluation instruments are mandatory to increase the level of evidence in scar management. Scar assessment scales are potentially suitable for this purpose, but the most appropriate scale still needs to be determined. This review will elaborate on several clinically relevant scar features and critically discuss the currently available scar scales in terms of basic clinimetric requirements. Many current scales can produce reliable measurements but seem to require multiple observers to obtain these results reliably, which limits their feasibility in clinical practice. The validation process of scar scales is hindered by the lack of a “gold standard” in subjective scar assessment or other reliable objective instruments which are necessary for a good comparison. The authors conclude that there are scar scales available that can reliably measure scar quality. However, further research may lead to improvement of their clinimetric properties and enhance the level of evidence in scar research worldwide.

Costs of burn care: a systematic review

Burn care is traditionally considered expensive care. However, detailed information about the costs of burn care is scarce despite the increased need for this information and the enhanced focus on healthcare cost control. In this study, economic literature on burn care was systematically reviewed to examine the problem of burn‐related costs. Cost or economic evaluation studies on burn care that had been published in international peer‐reviewed journals from 1950 to 2012 were identified. The methodology of these articles was critically appraised by two reviewers, and cost results were extracted. A total of 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly all of the studies were cost studies (n = 153) with a healthcare perspective (n = 139) from high‐income countries (n = 127). Hospital charges were often used as a proxy for costs (n = 44). Three studies were cost‐effectiveness analyses. The mean total healthcare cost per burn patient in high‐income countries was

Clinical effectiveness of dermal substitution in burns by topical negative pressure: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

88,218 (range

New dermal substitutes

704–