Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scar Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Total Scar Management

  • 1466 Accesses

Abstract

Various treatment modalities, such as surgical treatment and conservative treatment, including steroid injection, silicone gel sheeting, pressure treatment, and laser treatment, are available for treating scars. Assessment of the treatment outcome is crucial for determining appropriate treatment modality. In this chapter, we introduce assessment tools for scars. First, we address subjective assessment using scar rating scales in chronological order. The rating scales assess the main features of scars. They are simple, easy to use, noninvasive, fast, and inexpensive. Therefore, they are suitable for use in clinical practice. Second, we address objective assessment using devices for the measurement of scars. We categorize the devices according to the clinical scar features, namely color, thickness, pliability, surface area, and volume. The objective assessment of scars is quantitative, accurate, reliable, reproducible, and valid. Thus, the devices can detect small improvements. However, a small improvement in the treatment outcome may not meet the expectations of patients. Nevertheless, assessment of the outcome using devices is appropriate for research purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Smith GM, Tompkins DM, Bigelow ME, et al. Burn-induced cosmetic disfigurement: can it be measured reliably? J Burn Care Rehabil. 1988;9(4):371–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Crowe JM, Simpson K, Johnson W, et al. Reliability of photographic analysis in determining change in scar appearance. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1998;19(2):183–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, et al. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11(3):256–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baryza MJ, Baryza GA. The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1995;16(5):535–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(3):205–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Forbes-Duchart L, Mrashall S, Strock A, et al. Determination of inter-rater reliability in pediatric burn scar assessment using a modified version of the Vancouver Scar Scale. J Burn Care Res. 2007;28(3):460–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. 2004b;113(7):1960–5. discussion 1966–1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(4):353–5. discussion 352.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beausang E, Floyd H, Dunn KW, et al. A new quantitative scale for clinical scar assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(6):1954–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Quinn JV, Drzewiecki AE, Stiell IG, et al. Appearance scales to measure cosmetic outcomes of healed lacerations. Am J Emerg Med. 1995;13(2):229–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-6757(95)90100-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moiemen NS, Staiano JJ, Ojeh NO, et al. Reconstructive surgery with a dermal regeneration template: clinical and histologic study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(1):93–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Masters M, McMahon M, Svens B. Reliability testing of a new scar assessment tool, Matching Assessment of Scars and Photographs (MAPS). J Burn Care Rehabil. 2005;26(3):273–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Martin D, Umraw N, Gomez M, et al. Changes in subjective vs objective burn scar assessment over time: does the patient agree with what we think? J Burn Care Rehabil. 2003;24(4):239–44. discussion 238. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BCR.0000075842.55039.03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, et al. Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7):1892–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000287275.15511.10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bae SH, Bae YC. Analysis of frequency of use of different scar assessment scales based on the scar condition and treatment method. Arch Plast Surg. 2014;41(2):111–5. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.2.111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Schneider JC, Holavanahalli R, Helm P, et al. Contractures in burn injury: defining the problem. J Burn Care Res. 2006;27(4):508–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BCR.0000225994.75744.9D.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schneider JC, Holavanahalli R, Helm P, et al. Contractures in burn injury part II: investigating joints of the hand. J Burn Care Res. 2008;29(4):606–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0b013e31817db8e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, et al. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010;10:e43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Yamawaki S, Naitoh M, Ishiko T, et al. Keloids can be forced into remission with surgical excision and radiation, followed by adjuvant therapy. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;67(4):402–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820d684d.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ogawa R, Akaishi S. Endothelial dysfunction may play a key role in keloid and hypertrophic scar pathogenesis—keloids and hypertrophic scars may be vascular disorders. Med Hypotheses. 2016;96:51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2016.09.024.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tyack Z, Simons M, Spinks A, et al. A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use. Burns. 2012;38(1):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2011.09.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Draaijers LJ, Botman YA, Tempelman FR, et al. Skin elasticity meter or subjective evaluation in scars: a reliability assessment. Burns. 2004a;30(2):109–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2003.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oliveira GV, Chinkes D, Mitchell C, et al. Objective assessment of burn scar vascularity, erythema, pliability, thickness, and planimetry. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(1):48–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nedelec B, Correa JA, Rachelska G, et al. Quantitative measurement of hypertrophic scar: intrarater reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. J Burn Care Res. 2008b;29(3):489–500. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181710869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Atiles L, Mileski W, Purdue G, et al. Laser Doppler flowmetry in burn wounds. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1995;16(4):388–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ehrlich HP, Kelley SF. Hypertrophic scar: an interruption in the remodeling of repair—a laser Doppler blood flow study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;90(6):993–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Perry DM, McGrouther DA, Bayat A. Current tools for noninvasive objective assessment of skin scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(3):912–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181e6046b.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Merz KM, Pfau M, Blumenstock G, et al. Cutaneous microcirculatory assessment of the burn wound is associated with depth of injury and predicts healing time. Burns. 2010;36(4):477–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2009.06.195.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Verhaegen PD, van der Wal MB, Middelkoop E, et al. Objective scar assessment tools: a clinimetric appraisal. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(4):1561–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820a641a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fong SS, Hung LK, Cheng JC. The cutometer and ultrasonography in the assessment of postburn hypertrophic scar—a preliminary study. Burns. 1997;23(Suppl 1):S12–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Katz SM, Frank DH, Leopold GR, et al. Objective measurement of hypertrophic burn scar: a preliminary study of tonometry and ultrasonography. Ann Plast Surg. 1985;14(2):121–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Nedelec B, Correa JA, Rachelska G, et al. Quantitative measurement of hypertrophic scar: interrater reliability and concurrent validity. J Burn Care Res. 2008a;29(3):501–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181710881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Aya R, Yamawaki S, Muneuchi G, et al. Ultrasound elastography to evaluate keloids. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2014;2(2):e106. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000048.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Aya R, Yamawaki S, Yoshikawa K, et al. The shear wave velocity on elastography correlates with the clinical symptoms and histopathological features of keloids. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(7):e464. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000445.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Esposito G, Ziccardi P, Scioli M, et al. The use of a modified tonometer in burn scar therapy. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11(1):86–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Falanga V, Bucalo B. Use of a durometer to assess skin hardness. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1993;29(1):47–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. van Zuijlen PP, Angeles AP, Kreis RW, et al. Scar assessment tools: implications for current research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(3):1108–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee KC, Dretzke J, Grover L, et al. A systematic review of objective burn scar measurements. Burns Trauma. 2016;4:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41038-016-0036-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Matsuzaki K, Kumagai N, Fukushi S, et al. Cultured epithelial autografting on meshed skin graft scars: evaluation of skin elasticity. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1995;16(5):496–502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rennekampff HO, Rabbels J, Reinhard V, et al. Comparing the Vancouver Scar Scale with the cutometer in the assessment of donor site wounds treated with various dressings in a randomized trial. J Burn Care Res. 2006;27(3):345–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BCR.0000216311.61266.00.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. van Zuijlen PP, Vloemans JF, van Trier AJ, et al. Dermal substitution in acute burns and reconstructive surgery: a subjective and objective long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(7):1938–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. van Zuijlen PP, Angeles AP, Suijker MH, et al. Reliability and accuracy of techniques for surface area measurements of wounds and scars. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2004;3(1):7–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734604263200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ahn ST, Monafo WW, Mustoe TA. Topical silicone gel for the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scar. Arch Surg. 1991;126(4):499–504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sawada Y. A method of recording and objective assessment of hypertrophic burn scars. Burns. 1994;20(1):76–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ardehali B, Nouraei SA, Van Dam H, et al. Objective assessment of keloid scars with three-dimensional imaging: quantifying response to intralesional steroid therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(2):556–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000252505.52821.76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Taylor B, McGrouther DA, Bayat A. Use of a non-contact 3D digitiser to measure the volume of keloid scars: a useful tool for scar assessment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(1):87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.12.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. van der Aa T, Verhiel SH, Erends M, et al. A simplified three-dimensional volume measurement technique in keloid scars: Validity and reliability. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(11):1574–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Fukui Hospital, Fukui-City, Fukui, Japan

    Satoko Yamawaki

Authors
  1. Satoko Yamawaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satoko Yamawaki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan

    Rei Ogawa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yamawaki, S. (2020). Scar Evaluation. In: Ogawa, R. (eds) Total Scar Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9791-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9791-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9790-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9791-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation