Comparing the Vancouver Scar Scale with the cutometer in the assessment of donor site wounds treated with various dressings in a randomized trial

Journal of Burn Care and Research

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 345-351

  Rennekampff, Hans Oliver ^a,c   Rabbels, Jens ^b   Reinhard, Vonthein ^a   Becker, Stefan Thomas ^a   Schaller, Hans Eberhard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^c Burn Center   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COLLAGEN; PETROLATUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BURN; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CUTANEOUS PARAMETERS; DEVICE; EPITHELIZATION; FEMALE; FOREARM; HUMAN; HYPERTROPHIC SCAR; LEG; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SKIN GRAFT; SKIN PIGMENTATION; THIGH; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VANCOUVER SCAR SCALE; VISCOELASTICITY; WOUND DRESSING; WOUND HEALING;

BANDAGES; BURNS; CICATRIX; COATED MATERIALS, BIOCOMPATIBLE; EPITHELIUM; HUMANS; OCCLUSIVE DRESSINGS; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PETROLATUM; PLIABILITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SKIN TRANSPLANTATION; TISSUE AND ORGAN HARVESTING; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 33745661083     PISSN: 1559047X     EISSN: 15590488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.BCR.0000216311.61266.00     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Converse JM, Robb-Smith AHT. The healing of surface cutaneous wounds: its analogy with the healing of superficial burns. Ann Surg 1994;120:873-85.
2. McDonald WS, Deitch EA. Hypertrophic skin grafts in burn patients: a prospective analysis of variables. J Trauma 1987;27:147-50.
3. Rakel BA, Bermel MA, Abbott LI, et al. Split-thickness skin graft donor site care: a quantitative synthesis of the research. Appl Nurs Care 1998;11:174-82.
4. Cadier MA, Clarke JA. Dermasorb versus Jelonet in patients with burns skin graft donor sites. J Burn Care Rehabil 1996;17:246-51.
5. Poonyakariyagorn T, Sirimaharaj W, Pinchai O, Angspatt A. Comparison among opsite, polyvinyl chloride film and tule gauze in the treatment of skin graft donor site. J Med Assoc Thai 2002;85:455-61.
6. Prasad JK, Feller I, Thomson PD. A prospective controlled trial of biobrane versus scarlet red on skin graft donor areas. J Burn Care Rehabil 1987;8:384-6.
7. Hansbrough JF, Dore C, Hansbrough W, Trout S. The use of Biobrane II and Specialty AirFlow Beds (FluidAir Plus and Kinair) for effective coverage of extensive posterior donor site wounds. J Burn Care Rehabil 1994;15:137-42.
8. Housinger TA, Wondrely L, Warden GD. The use of Biobrane for coverage of the pediatric donor site. J Burn Care Rehabil 1993;14:26-8.
9. Feldman DL, Rogers A, Karpinski RHS. A prospective trial comparing Biobrane, Duoderm and Xeroform for skin graft donor sites. Surg Gynecol Obstetr 1991;173:1-5.
10. Hansbrough JF, Zapata-Sirvent R, Carroll WJ, Dominic WJ, Wang XW, Wakimoto A. Clinical experience with Biobrane biosynthetic dressing on the treatment of partial thickness burns. Burns 1984;10:415-9.
11. Tavis MJ, Harney JH, Thornton JW, Bartlett RH. Modified collagen membrane as a skin substitute: preliminary studies. J Biomed Mater Res 1975;9:285-301.
12. Gailit J, Clark RAF. Wound repair in the context of extracellular matrix. Curr Opinion Cell Biol 1994;6:717-25.
13. Gao ZR, Hao ZQ, Li Y, Im MJ, Spence RJ. Porcine dermal collagen as a wound dressing for skin donor sites and deep partial thickness burns. Burns 1992;18:492-6.
14. Horch RE, Stark GB. Comparison of the effect of a collagen dressing and a polyurethane dressing on the healing of split thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg 1998;32:407-13.
15. Karasek MA, Charlton ME. Growth of postembryonic skin epithelial cells on collagen gels. J Invest Dermatol 1971;55:205-10.
16. Vogt PM, Andree C, Breuing K, et al. Dry, moist and wet skin wound repair. Ann Plast Surg 1995;34:493-500.
17. James JH, Watson ACH. The use of Opsite, a vapor permeable dressing, on skin graft donor sites. Br J Plastic Surg 1975;28:107-10.
18. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 1990;11:256-60.
19. Powers PS, Sarkar S, Goldgof DB, Cruse CW, Tsap LV. Scar assessment: current problems and future solutions. J Burn Care Rehabil 1999;20:54-60.
20. Baryza MJ, Baryza GA. The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehabil 1995;16:535-8.
21. Yeong EK, Mann R, Engrav LH, et al. Improved burn scar assessment with use of a new scar-rating scale. J Burn Care Rehabil 1997;18:353-5.
22. Nedelec B, Shankowsky HA, Tredget EE. Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver Scar Scale and scar volume. J Burn Care Rehabil 2000;21:205-12.
23. Boyce ST, Supp AP, Wickett RR, Warden GD. Biophysical instrumentation for non-invasive assessment of skin wounds. J Burn Care Rehabil 1997;18:S198.
24. Boyce ST. Design principles for composition and performance of cultured skin substitutes. Burns 2001;27:523-33.
25. Barel AO, Courage W, Clarys P. Suction method for measurement of skin mechanical properties :the cutometer. In: Serup J, Jemec GBE, editors. Handbook of noninvasive methods and the skin. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press Inc.; 1995. p. 329-34.
26. Spann K, Mileski WJ, Atiles L, Purdue G, Hunt J. The 1996 Clinical Research Award. Use of a pneumatonometer in burn scar assessment. J Burn Care Rehabil 1996;17:515-7.
27. Boyce ST, Supp AP, Wickett RR, Hoath SB, Warden GD. Assessment with the dermal torque meter of skin pliability after treatment of burns with cultured skin substitutes. J Burn Care Rehabil 2000;21:55-63.
28. Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Elastic properties of human skin: relation to age, sex and anatomical region. Arch Dermatol Res 1990;202:283-8.
29. Krusche T, Worret WI. Mechanical properties of keloids in vivo during treatment with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide. Arch Dermatol Res 1995;287:289-93.
30. Fong SSL, Hung LK, Cheng JCY. The cutometer and ultrasonography in the assessment of postburn hypertrophic scar: a preliminary study. Burns 1997;23:S12-8.
31. van Zuijlen PPM, van Trier AJM, Vloemans JFMP, Groenevelt F, Kreis RW, Middelkoop E. Graft survival and effectiveness of dermal substitution in burns and reconstructive surgery in a one-stage grafting model. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:615-23.
32. Dobrev H. Use of cutometer to assess epidermal hydration. Skin Res Technol 2000;6:239-14.
33. Dobrev H. In vivo study on skin mechanical properties in patients with systemic sclerosis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999;40:436-42.
34. Pierard GE, Nikkels-Tassoudji N, Pierard-Franchimont C. Influence of the test area on the mechanical properties of skin. Dermatology 1995;191:9-15.
35. Takema Y, Yorimoto Y, Kawai M, Imokawa G. Age-related changes in the elastic properties and thickness of human facial skill. Br J Dermatol 1994;131:641-8.
36. Marvin JA. Pain assessment versus measurement. J Burn Care Rehabil 1995;16:348-57.
37. Scott-Connor CE, Meydrech E, Wheeler WE, Coil JA Jr. Quantitation of rate of wound closure and the prediction of death following major burns. Burns 1988;14:373-8.
38. Madden MR, Nolan E, Finkelstein JL, et al. Comparison of an occlusive and a semi-occlusive dressing and the effect of the wound exudate upon keratinocyte proliferation. J Trauma 1989;29:924-30.
39. Eloy R, Baguet J, Christe G, Rissoan MC, Paul J, Belleville J. An in vitro evaluation of the hemostatic activity of topical agents. J Biomed Mater Res 1988;22:149-57.