Cargando…

Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial

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 bur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oley, Mendy Hatibie, Oley, Maximillian Christian, Kepel, Billy Johnson, Manginstar, Christian, Rawung, Rangga, Langi, Fima Lanra Fredrik G., Barends, David, Aling, Deanette Michelle R., Wagiu, Angelica Maurene Joicetine, Faruk, Muhammad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34840756
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103006
_version_ 1784602419854835712
author Oley, Mendy Hatibie
Oley, Maximillian Christian
Kepel, Billy Johnson
Manginstar, Christian
Rawung, Rangga
Langi, Fima Lanra Fredrik G.
Barends, David
Aling, Deanette Michelle R.
Wagiu, Angelica Maurene Joicetine
Faruk, Muhammad
author_facet Oley, Mendy Hatibie
Oley, Maximillian Christian
Kepel, Billy Johnson
Manginstar, Christian
Rawung, Rangga
Langi, Fima Lanra Fredrik G.
Barends, David
Aling, Deanette Michelle R.
Wagiu, Angelica Maurene Joicetine
Faruk, Muhammad
author_sort Oley, Mendy Hatibie
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: Twenty patients were included in this study. Data analyzed using the paired t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated no statistically significant differences between the scar tissue created by monopolar electrosurgery and scalpels according to both the patients and the observers. Correlation analyses between the patients' and observers’ total POSAS scores indicated these followed a moderate linear relationship (r = 0.51; p < 0.001). Linear mixed models further supported the agreement of POSAS total scores between patients and observers. They also confirmed that electrosurgery was not inferior to the scalpel technique. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8606832
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86068322021-11-26 Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial Oley, Mendy Hatibie Oley, Maximillian Christian Kepel, Billy Johnson Manginstar, Christian Rawung, Rangga Langi, Fima Lanra Fredrik G. Barends, David Aling, Deanette Michelle R. Wagiu, Angelica Maurene Joicetine Faruk, Muhammad Ann Med Surg (Lond) Cohort Study 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: 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: Twenty patients were included in this study. Data analyzed using the paired t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated no statistically significant differences between the scar tissue created by monopolar electrosurgery and scalpels according to both the patients and the observers. Correlation analyses between the patients' and observers’ total POSAS scores indicated these followed a moderate linear relationship (r = 0.51; p < 0.001). Linear mixed models further supported the agreement of POSAS total scores between patients and observers. They also confirmed that electrosurgery was not inferior to the scalpel technique. CONCLUSION: 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. Elsevier 2021-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8606832/ /pubmed/34840756 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103006 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Cohort Study
Oley, Mendy Hatibie
Oley, Maximillian Christian
Kepel, Billy Johnson
Manginstar, Christian
Rawung, Rangga
Langi, Fima Lanra Fredrik G.
Barends, David
Aling, Deanette Michelle R.
Wagiu, Angelica Maurene Joicetine
Faruk, Muhammad
Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial
title Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial
title_full Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial
title_short Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial
title_sort post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: a randomised controlled trial
topic Cohort Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34840756
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103006
work_keys_str_mv AT oleymendyhatibie postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT oleymaximillianchristian postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT kepelbillyjohnson postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT manginstarchristian postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT rawungrangga postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT langifimalanrafredrikg postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT barendsdavid postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT alingdeanettemicheller postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT wagiuangelicamaurenejoicetine postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT farukmuhammad postskinincisionscartissueassessmentusingpatientandobserverscarassessmentscalesarandomisedcontrolledtrial