Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial.
Electrocautery
Patient and observer scar assessment scale
Scalpel
Scar tissue
Surgery incisions
Journal
Annals of medicine and surgery (2012)
ISSN: 2049-0801
Titre abrégé: Ann Med Surg (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101616869
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
revised:
30
10
2021
accepted:
31
10
2021
entrez:
29
11
2021
pubmed:
30
11
2021
medline:
30
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The scalpel was once the gold standard for surgical incisions. Electrosurgery has started to supplant scalpels but is not yet acceptable for skin incisions due to the risk of burns and deeper injury relative to the scalpels' neat incision with less tissue damage. The unnecessary burden of excessive scar formation makes comparing these two methods challenging. Therefore, this study aims to compare post-incision skin scarring created after monopolar electrosurgery and scalpel surgery, and evaluate the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) suitability for assessing skin incision scars by comparing patients' and observers' scores. This self-controlled study involved patients undergoing elective and emergency skin surgery procedures. A singular wound site was created using two incision methods (monopolar electrosurgery and scalpel) simultaneously. Post-incision scar tissue formation was evaluated using the POSAS, a subjective scar assessment tool that involved patients self-reporting on pain, itching, color, thickness flexibility, and surface relief. Observer-rated vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, flexibility, and surface relief both using a 5-point Likert-type scale. We performed this assessment three months post-surgery, and the results were analyzed by a battery of statistical tests and linear mixed models. Twenty patients were included in this study. Data analyzed using the paired Scar tissue from skin incisions made by monopolar electrosurgery were indistinguishable from those created with a scalpel. The POSAS instrument is an acceptable means of assessing scar formation on the skin.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The scalpel was once the gold standard for surgical incisions. Electrosurgery has started to supplant scalpels but is not yet acceptable for skin incisions due to the risk of burns and deeper injury relative to the scalpels' neat incision with less tissue damage. The unnecessary burden of excessive scar formation makes comparing these two methods challenging. Therefore, this study aims to compare post-incision skin scarring created after monopolar electrosurgery and scalpel surgery, and evaluate the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) suitability for assessing skin incision scars by comparing patients' and observers' scores.
METHODS
METHODS
This self-controlled study involved patients undergoing elective and emergency skin surgery procedures. A singular wound site was created using two incision methods (monopolar electrosurgery and scalpel) simultaneously. Post-incision scar tissue formation was evaluated using the POSAS, a subjective scar assessment tool that involved patients self-reporting on pain, itching, color, thickness flexibility, and surface relief. Observer-rated vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, flexibility, and surface relief both using a 5-point Likert-type scale. We performed this assessment three months post-surgery, and the results were analyzed by a battery of statistical tests and linear mixed models.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty patients were included in this study. Data analyzed using the paired
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Scar tissue from skin incisions made by monopolar electrosurgery were indistinguishable from those created with a scalpel. The POSAS instrument is an acceptable means of assessing scar formation on the skin.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34840756
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103006
pii: S2049-0801(21)00956-0
pmc: PMC8606832
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
103006Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Références
JSLS. 2012 Jan-Mar;16(1):130-9
pubmed: 22906341
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Br J Surg. 2012 May;99(5):613-20
pubmed: 22367850
Skin Res Technol. 2009 Feb;15(1):1-5
pubmed: 19152571
Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Apr;48(4):385-91
pubmed: 26941063
Int J Surg. 2015 Jul;19:78-82
pubmed: 26021211
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 3;9(6):e021289
pubmed: 31164358
Dent Clin North Am. 1982 Oct;26(4):799-823
pubmed: 6958599
J Dent Res. 2010 Mar;89(3):219-29
pubmed: 20139336
Br J Surg. 1990 Jun;77(6):626-7
pubmed: 2143426
Wound Repair Regen. 2016 Jan-Feb;24(1):26-34
pubmed: 26562746
Ann Dermatol. 2016 Oct;28(5):615-623
pubmed: 27746642
Codas. 2019 Oct 14;31(5):e20180238
pubmed: 31618317
Burns Trauma. 2016 Apr 27;4:14
pubmed: 27574684
Ann Plast Surg. 1985 Jan;14(1):59-63
pubmed: 3977242
Eplasty. 2010 Jun 21;10:e43
pubmed: 20596233
Mol Med. 2011 Jan-Feb;17(1-2):113-25
pubmed: 20927486
J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Mar;202(3):520-30
pubmed: 16500257
Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2017 Sep - Oct;67(5):527-534
pubmed: 27207830
Plast Aesthet Res. 2020;7:
pubmed: 33123623
Br J Surg. 2001 Jan;88(1):41-4
pubmed: 11136307
J Craniofac Surg. 2010 May;21(3):719-23
pubmed: 20485035