4.4 Article

Ultrasound assessed thickness of burn scars in association with laser Doppler imaging determined depth of burns in paediatric patients

Journal

BURNS
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 1254-1262

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2010.05.018

Keywords

Burns; Burn depth; Scars; Scar thickness; Ultrasound Scar assessment; Laser Doppler imaging; Hypertrophic scarring; Paediatric burns

Funding

  1. Queensland University of Technology Tissue Therapies Ltd
  2. Royal Children s Hospital Foundation, Brisbane Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes the ultrasound assessment of burn scars in paediatric patients and the association of these scar thickness with laser Doppler imaging (LDI) determined burn depth A total of 60 ultrasound scar assessments were conducted on 33 scars from 21 paediatric burn patients at 3 6 and 9 months after burn The mean of peak scar thickness was 0 39 0 032 cm with the thickest at 6 months (0 40 0 036 cm) There were 17 scald burn scars (0 34 0 045 cm) 4 contact burn scars (0 61 0 092 cm) and 10 flame burn scars (0 42 0 058 cm) Each group of scars followed normal distributions Twenty three scars had original burns successfully scanned by LDI and various depths of burns were presented by different colours according to blood perfusion units (PU) with dark blue <125 light blue 125-250 and green 250-440 PU The thickness of these scars was significantly different between the predominant colours of burns with the thinnest scars for green coloured burns and the thickest for dark blue coloured burns Within light blue burns grafted burns healed with significantly thinner scars than non grafted burns This study indicates that LDI can be used for predicting the risk of hypertrophic scarring and for guiding burn care To our knowledge this is the first study to correlate the thickness of burns scars by ultrasound scan with burn depth determined by LDI (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI All rights reserved

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available