• David B Lumenta, Eva Siepmann, and Lars-Peter Kamolz.
• Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
• Wound Repair Regen. 2014 Jul 1;22(4):483-91.

AbstractNo universally accepted standard for evaluation, prevention, and treatment of scars, hypertrophic scars, and keloids exists. Following development of a questionnaire, we performed a closed Web-based survey among burn centers. Server-based data collection was performed over 4 weeks and closed thereafter. The poll revealed emerging new treatment schemes, but the majority of participants adhered to evaluation (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Matching Assessment of Scars and Photographs, Vancouver Scar Scale, two-dimensional photography) and prevention (silicone gel sheets and compression garments) strategies that were in line with the currently available recommendations from the literature. We noted a low penetration for the use of objective evaluation tools in our poll and detected differences in surgical approaches to keloids. Based on the results of our survey and the power of currently available clinical recommendations, we expect future guidelines to gain more evidence-based power, especially when more high-quality clinical trials with objective evaluation support, clearly defined disease entities, and therapeutic outcome factors have become available.© 2014 by the Wound Healing Society.

30 keywords...

hide…