Nguyen Tuyet A, Feldstein Stephanie I, Shumaker Peter R, Krakowski Andrew C
Division of Pediatric and Adolescent Dermatology, Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, California, USA.
Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California, USA.
Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015 Mar;34(1):28-36. doi: 10.12788/j.sder.2015.0125.
At our current level of understanding, scars are an unavoidable result of disruption of the integument following trauma and other sources of injury in the postnatal period. Millions of people worldwide suffer from diminished quality of life due to varying degrees of disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial comorbidity. Scars also represent a significant financial burden to the healthcare system at large. Substantial momentum currently exists in scar research associated with innovative techniques and devices devoted to treating scars. In order to properly ascertain and compare responses to various therapies, accurate and reproducible qualitative and quantitative assessments are vital. At least 10 different scar assessment scales and tools have been created to date in an attempt to quantify scar severity. However, a "gold standard" scar scale still does not yet exist. A major limitation of most scar scales is their focus on a relatively narrow group of individual subjective and objective features, while failing to address the overall cosmetic, functional, and psychological sequelae. Herein, we provide a brief review of current scar assessment scales, discuss some of the major advantages and limitations of each, and introduce several characteristics that might be addressed in a new "gold standard" scar scale. The assessment and treatment of scars, particularly large traumatic scars, is frequently a multidisciplinary effort. The creation of an "ideal" scar scale will undoubtedly require input from therapists, surgeons, dermatologists, and other professionals alike.
就我们目前的认知水平而言,疤痕是出生后创伤及其他损伤源导致皮肤完整性破坏后不可避免的结果。全球数以百万计的人因不同程度的毁容、功能障碍及心理社会共病而生活质量下降。疤痕对整个医疗系统而言也是一项重大经济负担。目前,疤痕研究在致力于治疗疤痕的创新技术和设备方面有很大进展。为了准确确定并比较对各种疗法的反应,准确且可重复的定性和定量评估至关重要。迄今为止,至少已创建了10种不同的疤痕评估量表和工具,试图量化疤痕严重程度。然而,“金标准”疤痕量表仍不存在。大多数疤痕量表的一个主要局限性在于,它们侧重于相对狭窄的一组个体主观和客观特征,却未能解决整体的美容、功能和心理后遗症问题。在此,我们简要回顾当前的疤痕评估量表,讨论每种量表的一些主要优点和局限性,并介绍可能在新的“金标准”疤痕量表中涉及的几个特征。疤痕的评估和治疗,尤其是大型创伤性疤痕,通常需要多学科协作。创建一个“理想”的疤痕量表无疑需要治疗师、外科医生、皮肤科医生及其他专业人员的参与。