BACKGROUND: Burn survivors are frequently faced with disfiguring scars. Various techniques exist to improve scar appearance, such as laser treatment and dermabrasion. Next to that, surgical reconstruction, such as scar excision is an option. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether a larger burn scar can be excised using a skin-stretching device for wound closure, thereby optimizing use of adjacent healthy skin. This technique may allow scar excision in a one-step procedure instead of two or more steps, which is necessary for serial excision and tissue expansion.METHODS: Two arms were compared: scar excision and closure by skin stretch and scar excision without additional techniques. The primary outcome measure was scar surface area reduction. In addition, complications were registered.RESULTS: Fifteen patients were randomized for skin stretch and 15 patients were randomized for scar excision only. In the skin stretch group, 10 of 15 scars were completely excised compared with three of 15 in the scar excision-only group (p = 0.025). In the skin stretch group, a significantly larger reduction in scar area was achieved: 95 ± 11 percent of the scar was excised versus 78 ± 17 percent in the scar excision-only group (p = 0.003). One patient in the skin stretch group and three patients in the scar excision-only group experienced partial wound dehiscence (p = 0.598).CONCLUSIONS: In burn scar reconstructions, a significantly larger reduction in scar area can be achieved using a skin-stretching device compared with scar excision with no additional techniques, without an increased risk of complications. It was shown that skin stretching is of added value for scars that cannot be excised in a one-step procedure.
BACKGROUND: Burn survivors are frequently faced with disfiguring scars. Various techniques exist to improve scar appearance, such as laser treatment and dermabrasion. Next to that, surgical reconstruction, such as scar excision is an option. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether a larger burn scar can be excised using a skin-stretching device for wound closure, thereby optimizing use of adjacent healthy skin. This technique may allow scar excision in a one-step procedure instead of two or more steps, which is necessary for serial excision and tissue expansion.METHODS: Two arms were compared: scar excision and closure by skin stretch and scar excision without additional techniques. The primary outcome measure was scar surface area reduction. In addition, complications were registered.RESULTS: Fifteen patients were randomized for skin stretch and 15 patients were randomized for scar excision only. In the skin stretch group, 10 of 15 scars were completely excised compared with three of 15 in the scar excision-only group (p = 0.025). In the skin stretch group, a significantly larger reduction in scar area was achieved: 95 ± 11 percent of the scar was excised versus 78 ± 17 percent in the scar excision-only group (p = 0.003). One patient in the skin stretch group and three patients in the scar excision-only group experienced partial wound dehiscence (p = 0.598).CONCLUSIONS: In burn scar reconstructions, a significantly larger reduction in scar area can be achieved using a skin-stretching device compared with scar excision with no additional techniques, without an increased risk of complications. It was shown that skin stretching is of added value for scars that cannot be excised in a one-step procedure.
BackgroundHyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used to treat various wound types. However, the possible beneficial and harmful effects of HBOT for acute wounds are unclear.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT compared to other interventions on wound healing and adverse effects in patients with acute wounds. To detect all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we searched five relevant databases up to March 2010. Trial selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis were conducted by two of the authors independently.ResultsWe included five trials, totaling 360 patients. These trials, with some methodologic flaws, included different kinds of wound and focused on different outcome parameters, which prohibited meta-analysis. A French trial (n = 36 patients) reported that significantly more crush wounds healed with HBOT than with sham HBOT [relative risk (RR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–2.61]. Moreover, there were significantly fewer additional surgical procedures required with HBOT (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03–2.50), and there was significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.11–2.61). In one of two American trials (n = 141) burn wounds healed significantly quicker with HBOT (P < 0.005) than with routine burn care. A British trial (n = 48) compared HBOT with usual care. HBOT resulted in a significantly higher percentage of healthy graft area in split skin grafts (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.35–9.11). In a Chinese trial (n = 145) HBOT did not significantly improve flap survival in patients with limb skin defects.ConclusionsHBOT, if readily available, appears effective for the management of acute, difficult to heal wounds.
