Does the form of dressings matter?: A comparison of the efficacy in the management of postoperative scars between silicone sheets and silicone gel: a randomized controlled trial

Micro-plasma radiofrequency and silicone gel dressings for treating early post-traumatic facial scars: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although different options are available for treating post-traumatic facial scars, they remain a therapeutic challenge.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of combined therapy using micro-plasma radiofrequency (MPRF) technology and silicone gel (SG) dressings for treating post-traumatic facial scars.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at a single center. Patients with facial injuries in the outpatient and emergency units of the Department of Plastic Surgery at our hospital underwent debridement and cosmetic sutures performed by the same surgeon from October 2020 to October 2021. In the first arm, patients with facial injuries were treated with MPRF technology and SG, and in the second arm, they were treated with SG dressings alone. We observed the safety and effectiveness of these treatments in both arms.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients with facial injuries were treated with MPRF technology and SG dressings (combined treatment group), and 28 patients were treated with SG dressings alone (SG group). After 6 months of treatment, the Vancouver Scar Scale scores of the combined treatment and SG groups were 1.38 ± 0.71 and 4.39 ± 0.50, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). After 6 months of treatment, the effectiveness rate in the combined treatment group was 93.8%, which was significantly higher than that in the SG group (67.9%), and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). No obvious adverse reactions occurred in the two arms.

CONCLUSION

Treating early post-traumatic facial scars with combined MPRF technology and SG is significantly better than treating them with SG alone; moreover, the combined therapy is safe and effective.

Efficacy and Safety of Pressure Therapy Alone and in Combination with Silicone in Prevention of Hypertrophic Scars: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

At present, there are many kinds of hypertrophic scar treatment methods, among which pressure therapy and silicone therapy are very common and standard therapies, but whether they are used alone or in combination is still controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of pressure therapy and silicone therapy (PTS) with pressure therapy alone (PT) in the treatment of hypertrophic scars to provide clinicians with information so that they can make better decisions.

METHODS

Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected by searching PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to assess scar scores (The Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS; Visual Analog Scale, VAS) and adverse effects.

RESULTS

We screened 1270 articles and included 6 RCTs including 228 patients. We found that height (MD = 0.15, 95%CI 0.10-0.21, p < 0.01) and pliability (MD = 0.35, 95%CI 0.25-0.46, p <0.01) had a significant difference, these two measures showed that the PTS group was superior to the PT group. Results in other aspects, such as VSS, vascularity, pigmentation, VAS, and adverse effects were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between PTS and PT in the overall treatment efficacy of hypertrophic scars with similar VSS and adverse effects, but PTS might have potential benefits for height and pliability. Additional studies with larger sample size and sound methodological quality are needed to confirm our conclusions. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Occlusion and hydration of scars: moisturizers versus silicone gels

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of non-invasive scar management, consists of pressure therapy with customized pressure garments often combined with inlays, hydration by means of silicones and/or moisturizers as well as UV protection. It is generally accepted that scar dehydration resulting from impaired barrier function of the stratum corneum and expressed by raised trans epidermal water loss (TEWL) values, can lead to increased fibroblast activity and thereby hypertrophic scar formation. However, we have reached no consensus on exactly what optimal scar hydration is nor on barrier function repair: by means of silicone sheets, liquid silicone gels or moisturizers. Occlusive silicone sheets almost completely prevent TEWL and have been shown to be effective. Nevertheless, many important disadvantages due to excessive occlusion such as difficulties in applying the sheets exceeding 10-12 h, pruritus, irritation, and maceration of the skin are limiting factors for its use. To avoid these complications and to facilitate the application, liquid silicone gels were developed. Despite a reduced occlusion, various studies have shown that the effects are comparable to these of the silicone sheets. However, major limiting factors for general use are the long drying time, the shiny aspect after application, and the high cost especially when used for larger scars. Based on excellent clinical results after using three specific moisturizers for scar treatment in our patients, we wanted to investigate whether these moisturizers induce comparable occlusion and hydration compared to both each other and the widely recognized liquid silicone gels. We wanted to provide a more scientific basis for the kind of moisturizers that can be used as a full-fledged and cost-effective alternative to silicone gel.

METHODS

A total of 36 healthy volunteers participated in this study. Increased TEWL was created by inducing superficial abrasions by rigorous (20x) skin stripping with Corneofix® adhesive tape in squares of 4 cm². Three moisturizers and a fluid silicone gel were tested: DermaCress, Alhydran, Lipikar and BAP Scar Care silicone gel respectively. TEWL reducing capacities and both absolute (AAH) and cumulative (CAAH) absolute added hydration were assessed using a Tewameter® TM300 and a Corneometer® CM825 at different time points for up to 4 h after application.

RESULTS

We found an immediate TEWL increase in all the zones that underwent superficial abrasions by stripping. Controls remained stable over time, relative to the ambient condition. The mean percentage reduction (MPR) in TEWL kept increasing over time with Alhydran and DermaCress, reaching a maximum effect 4 h after application. Silicone gel reached maximal MPR almost immediately after application and only declined thereafter. The silicone gel never reached the minimal MPR of Alhydran or DermaCress. Hydration capacity assessed through CAAH as measured by the Corneometer was significantly less with silicone gel compared to the moisturizers. Compared to silicone gel Lipikar provided similar occlusion and the improvement in hydration was highly significant 4 h after application.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of both our previous research and this study it is clearly demonstrated that the occlusive and hydrative effect of fluid silicone gel is inferior to the moisturizers used in our center. Lipikar hydrates well but is less suitable for scar treatment due to the lack of occlusion. A well-balanced occlusion and hydration, in this study only provided by Alhydran and DermaCress, suggests that moisturizers can be used as a scar hydration therapy that replaces silicone products, is more cost-effective and has a more patient-friendly application.

Photobiomodulation therapy with an 830-nm light-emitting diode for the prevention of thyroidectomy scars: a randomized, double-blind, sham device-controlled clinical trial

This randomized, double-blind, and sham device-controlled trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of home-based photobiomodulation therapy using an 830-nm light-emitting diode (LED)-based device for the prevention of and pain relief from thyroidectomy scars. Participants were randomized to receive photobiomodulation therapy using an LED device or a sham device without an LED from 1 week postoperatively for 4 weeks. Scars were assessed using satisfaction scores, the numeric rating scale (NRS) score for pain, Global Assessment Scale (GAS), and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores. The scars were also assessed using a three-dimensional (3D) skin imaging device to detect color, height, pigmentation, and vascularity. Assessments were performed at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Forty-three patients completed this trial with 21 patients in the treatment group and 22 patients in the control group. The treatment group showed significantly higher patient satisfaction and GAS scores and lower NRS and VSS scores than the control group at 6 months. Improvements in color variation, height, pigmentation, and vascularity at 6 months were greater in the treatment group than in the control group, although the differences were not significant. In conclusion, early application of 830-nm LED-based photobiomodulation treatment significantly prevents hypertrophic scar formation and reduces postoperative pain without noticeable adverse effects.

Silicones in dermatological topical drug formulation: Overview and advances

Silicones, more specifically those of the polydimethylsiloxane type, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical industry for decades, particularly in topical applications. In the dermatological field, in addition to provide undeniable textural and sensory benefits, they can play important functions in the physicochemical properties, stability and biopharmaceutical behavior of these formulations. However, despite the notable advances that can be attributed to the family of silicones, the reputation of these compounds is quite bad. Indeed, silicones, even if they derive from sand, are synthetic compounds. Moreover, they are not biodegradable. They flow into our wastewater and oceans, accumulating in the fauna and flora. This obviously raises many concerns in the common imagination. Do silicones represent a danger for our environment? Should the human species worry about long term toxic effects? Are the claimed benefits really that important? After exploring the various applications of silicone excipients in topical dermatological formulations with a special focus on recent advances which open breathtaking prospects for dermatological applications, this paper shed light on the specific challenges involved in preparation of silicone-based drug as well as, the in vivo behavior of these polymers, the toxicological and environmental risks associated with their application.

2-Octyl Cyanoacrylate Topical Adhesive as an Alternative to Subcuticular Suture for Skin Closure After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Same Patient

BACKGROUND

The 2-octyl cyanoacrylate topical adhesive with flexible self-adhesive polyester mesh (Dermabond Prineo) is becoming widely used in many surgical fields. However, no prior studies have tested the efficacy and safety of this topical adhesive compared with subcuticular suture in the same patient. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between Dermabond Prineo and subcuticular suture for skin closure in patients undergoing same-day bilateral total knee arthroplasties (TKAs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial was performed in 51 patients scheduled to undergo same-day bilateral TKAs. One knee was randomly assigned to the Dermabond Prineo and the other knee was allocated to the subcuticular suture. As primary outcomes, Vancouver scar scale was evaluated at 6 months and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was evaluated at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included cosmesis efficacy (Hollander wound evaluation scale [HWES] and cosmesis visual analog scale [VAS]), time and pain efficiency (skin suture time, stitch out time, and stitch out pain VAS), and safety (wound complications during the 6-month follow-up period). The primary and secondary outcome measures were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in Vancouver scar scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale at 6 months. Although there were no significant differences in HWES at 2 weeks, the Dermabond Prineo group showed better step-off border item of HWES. There was also no difference in cosmesis VAS at 6 months. The Dermabond Prineo group showed superior results in terms of time (suture time: Dermabond Prineo = 191 second (sec) ± 60.1 sec, subcuticular suture = 356.8 sec ± 92.3 sec; stitch out time: Dermabond Prineo = 4 sec ± 1.3 sec, subcuticular suture = 26.6 sec ± 4.2 sec, all P < .001) without significant differences in pain scale (P = .823) or wound complications (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Comparing cosmetic efficacy, time efficiency, and safety, Dermabond Prineo provided quicker wound closure, shorter stitch out time, and better wound margin coaptation in the early postoperative period but similar cosmetic efficacy compared with subcuticular suture. Based on our study, Dermabond Prineo is a useful alternative to subcuticular suture in patients undergoing TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level 1.

Developments in silicone technology for use in stoma care

Soft silicone's flexibility, adhesive capacity and non-toxic, non-odourous and hypoallergenic nature have made it an established material for adhesive and protective therapeutic devices. In wound care, silicone is a component of contact layer dressings for superficial wounds and silicone gel sheeting for reducing the risk of scarring, as well as of barriers for incontinence-associated dermatitis. Regarding stoma accessories, silicone is established in barrier films to prevent contact dermatitis, adhesive removers to prevent skin stripping and filler gels to prevent appliance leaks. Until recently, silicone has not been used in stoma appliances flanges, as its hydrophobic nature has not allowed for moisture management to permit transepidermal water loss and prevent maceration. Traditional hydrocolloid appliances manage moisture by absorbing water, but this can lead to saturation and moisture-associated skin damage (MASD), as well as increased adhesion and resultant skin tears on removal, known as medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI). However, novel silicone compounds have been developed with a distinct evaporation-based mechanism of moisture management. This uses colloidal separation to allow the passage of water vapour at a rate equivalent to normal transepidermal water loss. It has been shown to minimise MASD, increase wear time and permit atraumatic removal without the use of adhesive solvents. Trio Healthcare has introduced this technology with a range of silicone-based flange extenders and is working with the University of Bradford Centre for Skin Sciences on prototype silicone-based stoma appliance flanges designed to significantly reduce the incidence of peristomal skin complications, such as MARSI and MASD. It is hoped that this will also increase appliance wear time, reduce costs and improve patient quality of life.

Developments in silicone technology for use in stoma care

Soft silicone's flexibility, adhesive capacity and non-toxic, non-odourous and hypoallergenic nature have made it an established material for adhesive and protective therapeutic devices. In wound care, silicone is a component of contact layer dressings for superficial wounds and silicone gel sheeting for reducing the risk of scarring, as well as of barriers for incontinence-associated dermatitis. Regarding stoma accessories, silicone is established in barrier films to prevent contact dermatitis, adhesive removers to prevent skin stripping and filler gels to prevent appliance leaks. Until recently, silicone has not been used in stoma appliances flanges, as its hydrophobic nature has not allowed for moisture management to permit transepidermal water loss and prevent maceration. Traditional hydrocolloid appliances manage moisture by absorbing water, but this can lead to saturation and moisture-associated skin damage (MASD), as well as increased adhesion and resultant skin tears on removal, known as medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI). However, novel silicone compounds have been developed with a distinct evaporation-based mechanism of moisture management. This uses colloidal separation to allow the passage of water vapour at a rate equivalent to normal transepidermal water loss. It has been shown to minimise MASD, increase wear time and permit atraumatic removal without the use of adhesive solvents. Trio Healthcare has introduced this technology with a range of silicone-based flange extenders and is working with the University of Bradford Centre for Skin Sciences on prototype silicone-based stoma appliance flanges designed to significantly reduce the incidence of peristomal skin complications, such as MARSI and MASD. It is hoped that this will also increase appliance wear time, reduce costs and improve patient quality of life.

Scoping Review of Therapeutic Strategies for Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars

Background:

Keloids are an abnormal proliferation of scars that can involve large areas of tissue beyond the original injury site. Hypertrophic scars are similar clinically, but do not exceed the original scar limits. These scarring abnormalities can cause noxious symptoms such as pain, tenderness, itching, and ulcerations. The aim of this review is to discuss current therapies for both types of abnormal scarring, and to determine if guidelines can be provided for excisional treatment with adjuvant therapies versus non-excisional methods.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was performed through the Web of Science database. The search revolved around keywords such as “keloid,” “hypertrophic scars,” and “treatment.” Articles were reviewed and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review focuses on an analysis and summarization of randomized control trials regarding keloid or hypertrophic scar treatments.

Results:

The original searches produced 1161 and 1275 articles for keloid and hypertrophic scars, respectively. In total, 316 duplicates were found. After accounting for 2014–2019 publication time, 655 keloid and 893 hypertrophic scar articles were reviewed. This resulted in 15 articles that pertained to treatment and randomized control trials.

Conclusions:

Keloids and hypertrophic scars present a clinical challenge. Based on qualitative review of recurrence, neither excision plus adjuvant therapy or nonsurgical treatments can be recommended preferentially at this time. More research is needed to determine if recurrence rate bias exists between the treatment regimens, as excisional treatment plus adjuvant therapy is reserved for refractory scars.

Safety assessment of the prophylactic use of silicone gel sheets (Lady Care®) for the prevention of hypertrophic scars following caesarean section

This study aimed to investigate the side effects of silicone gel sheet (Lady Care^®) and evaluate its prophylactic efficacy in preventing abnormal scarring. Sixty women who underwent caesarean section were recruited from September 2016 to September 2017 in this prospective study. Lady Care^® was applied from the 2nd to the 6th postoperative months. Side effects of Lady Care^® were evaluated through medical examinations and questionnaires. A plastic surgeon diagnosed abnormal scarring. Pruritus was diagnosed in 25 (47.2%) patients; folliculitis, four (7.5%); dry skin, four (7.5%); contact dermatitis, three (5.7%); wound infection, two (3.8%); and epidermolysis, one (1.9%), albeit with mild severity. Following Lady Care^® application, no abnormal scarring and mild hypertrophic scarring was observed in 32 (64.0%) and 18 (36.0%) patients respectively. Of seven patients with pre-existing hypertrophic scars, only two showed hypertrophic scarring after Lady Care^® application. Our findings support the safety and prophylactic efficacy of Lady Care^®.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? The incidence of abnormal scarring, i.e. keloid or hypertrophic scar formation after caesarean section (CS) is reported to be ∼41%. Abnormal or excessive scar formation can lead to functional limitations, pruritus, pain and cosmetic issues. Studies have also shown a prophylactic effect of the application of silicone materials against the development of hypertrophic and keloid scars, though prohibitive cost and lack of adhesiveness of such gel sheets are known factors limiting their usage.What the results of this study add? The new silicone gel sheet 'Lady Care^®' has strong adhesive properties and is consequently not easily peeled off. Furthermore, it is easy to use and economically efficient.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This is the first clinical trial on the application of Lady Care^® silicone gel sheet for the prevention of CS scarring. Our findings support the safety and prophylactic efficacy of Lady Care^®.

Topical Scar Treatment Products for Wounds: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing number of over-the-counter topical products that are said to prevent pathologic scar formation and improve scar cosmesis. However, robust clinical data are lacking to substantiate these claims and to guide selection of topical products.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of topical scar management products, including silicone gel, Allium cepa onion extract, vitamin E, trolamine, and microporous tape.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PubMed search (2005-2019) was performed to identify studies of topical scar management products. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, meta-analyses, and controlled clinical trials were included for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 34 trials were included in this study. Of the 16 trials investigating silicone gel sheets, numerous high-quality RCTs found that silicone gel sheets and silicone gels significantly improved scar outcomes. Only a limited number of studies supported the effectiveness of onion extract, vitamin E, trolamine, and microporous tape products.

CONCLUSION

Silicone gel products are an effective noninvasive treatment to prevent formation of pathologic scars and improve mature scars. Further high-quality studies are needed to elucidate the long-term effectiveness of these therapies.

Preliminary Investigation of the Usability Characteristics Required for Wound Management Products by Semi-Structural Interview of Medical Staff

Consideration of drug usability characteristics is important during the design process. Although many wound management products have been developed in recent years, there are few studies on their usability. We investigated the needs and characteristics of wound management products required by medical professionals, so as to consider these in future development projects. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a group of healthcare professionals. Interview responses were analyzed based on thematic analysis. Four themes common to all facilities were secondary wounds, adaptability of materials, convenience, and physicochemical properties. Economic efficiency of medical care was found to be considered only at the hospital, and quality of life of patients was found to be considered only at the home palliative care clinic. Requirements for wound management products can be affected by participants’ roles and their facility settings. However, there were needs common to all fields that all wound management products should aim to incorporate.

Developments in silicone technology for use in stoma care

Soft silicone's flexibility, adhesive capacity and non-toxic, non-odourous and hypoallergenic nature have made it an established material for adhesive and protective therapeutic devices. In wound care, silicone is a component of contact layer dressings for superficial wounds and silicone gel sheeting for reducing the risk of scarring, as well as of barriers for incontinence-associated dermatitis. Regarding stoma accessories, silicone is established in barrier films to prevent contact dermatitis, adhesive removers to prevent skin stripping and filler gels to prevent appliance leaks. Until recently, silicone has not been used in stoma appliances flanges, as its hydrophobic nature has not allowed for moisture management to permit trans-epidermal water loss and prevent maceration. Traditional hydrocolloid appliances manage moisture by absorbing water, but this can lead to saturation and moisture-associated skin damage (MASD), as well as increased adhesion and resultant skin tears on removal, known as medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI). However, novel silicone compounds have been developed with a distinct evaporation-based mechanism of moisture management. This uses colloidal separation to allow the passage of water vapour at a rate equivalent to normal trans-epidermal water loss. It has been shown to minimise MASD, increase wear time and permit atraumatic removal without the use of adhesive solvents. Trio Healthcare has introduced this technology with a range of silicone-based flange extenders and is working with the University of Bradford Centre for Skin Sciences on prototype silicone-based stoma appliance flanges designed to significantly reduce the incidence of peristomal skin complications, such as MARSI and MASD. It is hoped that this will also increase appliance wear time, reduce costs and improve patient quality of life.

Efficacy of topical silicone gel in scar management: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

To assess the efficacy of topical silicone gel in the management of scars, we conducted this meta-analysis. The systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, and six randomised controlled trials with a total of 375 patients were involved. The outcome data of Vancouver Scar Scale were extracted from the studies and their effect sizes were calculated using Review Manager 5.3. As a result, topical silicone gel significantly reduced pigmentation, height, and pliability scores postoperatively compared with placebos or no treatment (Pigmentation: standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.55 [-0.83 to -0.26], P = .0002; Height: SMD = -0.73 [-1.02 to -0.44], P < .00001; Pliability: SMD = -0.49 [-0.95 to -0.03], P = .04). Topical silicone gel and silicone gel sheet were comparably effective (P > .05). The performance of topical silicone gel and other non-silicone topical treatment was also similar (P > .05). In summary, topical silicone gel was effective in post-operative scar prevention.