Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Frequency of Use of Different Scar Assessment Scales Based on the Scar Condition and Treatment Method

  • Bae, Seong Hwan (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Bae, Yong Chan (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2013.04.22
  • Accepted : 2013.07.23
  • Published : 2014.03.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Analysis of scars in various conditions is essential, but no consensus had been reached on the scar assessment scale to select for a given condition. We reviewed papers to determine the scar assessment scale selected depending on the scar condition and treatment method. We searched PubMed for articles published since 2000 with the contents of the scar evaluation using a scar assessment scale with a Journal Citation Report impact factor >0.5. Among them, 96 articles that conducted a scar evaluation using a scar assessment scale were reviewed and analyzed. The scar assessment scales were identified and organized by various criteria. Among the types of scar assessment scales, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was found to be the most frequently used scale. As for the assessment of newly developed operative scars, the POSAS was most used. Meanwhile, for categories depending on the treatment methods for preexisting scars, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used in 6 studies following a laser treatment, the POSAS was used in 7 studies following surgical treatment, and the POSAS was used in 7 studies following a conservative treatment. Within the 12 categories of scar status, the VSS showed the highest frequency in 6 categories and the POSAS showed the highest frequency in the other 6 categories. According to our reviews, the POSAS and VSS are the most frequently used scar assessment scales. In the future, an optimal, universal scar scoring system is needed in order to better evaluate and treat pathologic scarring.

Keywords

References

  1. van Zuijlen PP, Angeles AP, Kreis RW, et al. Scar assessment tools: implications for current research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:1108-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200203000-00052
  2. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, et al. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 1990;11:256-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199005000-00014
  3. Beausang E, Floyd H, Dunn KW, et al. A new quantitative scale for clinical scar assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102:1954-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199811000-00022
  4. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:1960-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000122207.28773.56
  5. Fearmonti RM, Bond JE, Erdmann D, et al. The modified Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: a novel approach to defining pathologic and nonpathologic scarring. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:242-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f959e8
  6. Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, et al. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 2010;10:e43.
  7. Quinn JV, Drzewiecki AE, Stiell IG, et al. Appearance scales to measure cosmetic outcomes of healed lacerations. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13:229-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-6757(95)90100-0
  8. Truong PT, Lee JC, Soer B, et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in evaluating linear scars after breast cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:487-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000252949.77525.bc
  9. Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, et al. Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:1892-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000287275.15511.10
  10. Nicholas RS, Falvey H, Lemonas P, et al. Patient-related keloid scar assessment and outcome measures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:648-56. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182402c51

Cited by

  1. Prevention of Postsurgical Scars: Comparsion of Efficacy and Convenience between Silicone Gel Sheet and Topical Silicone Gel vol.29, pp.suppl3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.s3.s249
  2. The Use of Silicone Adhesives for Scar Reduction vol.4, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0625
  3. Heat Shock Protein 90 Inhibitor (17-AAG) Induces Apoptosis and Decreases Cell Migration/Motility of Keloid Fibroblasts vol.136, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001362
  4. Manejo de heridas complejas con sustitutos dérmicos vol.68, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rchic.2015.10.005
  5. A new CO 2 laser technique for the treatment of pediatric hypertrophic burn scars : An observational study vol.95, pp.42, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000005168
  6. A prospective study of time to healing and hypertrophic scarring in paediatric burns: every day counts vol.5, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41038-016-0068-2
  7. Objective and Patient-reported Assessments of Skin Grafts and Keystone Flaps—A Pilot Retrospective Cohort Study vol.6, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000002024
  8. Evaluation of the donor site after the median forehead flap vol.45, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2017.01277
  9. Qualitative Assessment of Columella Scar Quality After Extended Mohler Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair : vol.30, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005750
  10. Noninvasive tissue adhesive for cardiac implantable electronic device pocket closure: the TAPE pilot study vol.54, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-018-0457-5
  11. Evaluation of the scars’ vascularization using computer processing of the digital images vol.25, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.12634
  12. Patient-reported outcomes for keloids: a systematic review vol.154, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.23736/s0392-0488.18.06089-3
  13. A dose-ranging, parallel group, split-face, single-blind phase II study of light emitting diode-red light (LED-RL) for skin scarring prevention: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial vol.20, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3546-6
  14. Optimal Timing of Surgical Excision in Pediatric Pilomatricoma: Association between Clinicopathological Features and Cosmetic Outcomes vol.32, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5021/ad.2020.32.2.93
  15. Upper Blepharoplasty Scar and Patient Satisfaction Evaluation in a Plastic Surgery Center in Mexico vol.8, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4236/jbm.2020.86008
  16. The efficacy of onion extract in the management of subsequent abdominal hypertrophic scar formation vol.29, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2020.29.10.612
  17. Aesthetic Outcomes of Perineal Reconstruction with the Lotus Petal Flap vol.9, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000003621
  18. A three‐dimensional scar assessment tool for keloid scars: Volume, erythema and melanin quantified vol.27, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.13050
  19. Mekeres’ Psychosocial Internalization Scale: A Scale for the Evaluation of Aesthetic Prejudice in Victims of Accidents and Violence vol.9, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9111440
  20. A clinical comparison of pure knitted silk and a complex synthetic skin substitute for the treatment of partial thickness burns vol.19, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13613