Choo Amanda Min Hui, Ong Yee Siang, Issa Fadi
Ministry of Health, Singapore, Singapore.
Department of Plastics, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Front Surg. 2021 Jun 23;8:643098. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.643098. eCollection 2021.
Healing after dermal injury is a complex but imperfect process that results in a wide range of visible scars. The degree of disfigurement is not the sole determinant of a scar's effect on patient well-being, with a number of other factors being critical to outcome. These include cosmetic appearance, symptoms such as itch and pain, functional loss, psychological or social problems, and quality of life. An accurate assessment of these domains can help clinicians measure outcomes, develop, and evaluate treatment strategies. A PubMed literature search was performed up to 31st March 2020. Ten objective scar measurements, four Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures (CROMs), six Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), and one combined measure were evaluated for their reliability, clinical relevance, responsiveness to clinical change, and feasibility. Many quantitative tools were limited in their clinical relevance and feasibility, whereas few qualitative CROMs and PROMs have undergone rigorous assessment. This review examines currently available assessment tools, focusing primarily on subjective scar measurements (CROMs, PROMs), and offers a perspective on future directions in the field.
皮肤损伤后的愈合是一个复杂但并不完美的过程,会导致多种明显的疤痕。疤痕的毁容程度并非影响患者健康的唯一决定因素,还有许多其他因素对预后至关重要。这些因素包括外观、瘙痒和疼痛等症状、功能丧失、心理或社会问题以及生活质量。对这些方面进行准确评估有助于临床医生衡量治疗效果、制定并评估治疗策略。截至2020年3月31日进行了PubMed文献检索。对十种客观疤痕测量方法、四种临床医生报告结局测量方法(CROMs)、六种患者报告结局测量方法(PROMs)以及一种综合测量方法的可靠性、临床相关性、对临床变化的反应性和可行性进行了评估。许多定量工具在临床相关性和可行性方面存在局限,而很少有定性的CROMs和PROMs经过严格评估。本综述考察了目前可用的评估工具,主要聚焦于主观疤痕测量方法(CROMs、PROMs),并对该领域的未来发展方向提出了见解。