Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33(01): 097-101
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1597684
Rapid Communication
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Applying a Visual Assessment Tool to Facial Linear Scars

Lindsey K. Collins
1   Department of Surgery, Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
,
Thomas J. Knackstedt
2   Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Pamela Ganger
1   Department of Surgery, Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
,
Emily Scherer
3   Department of Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
,
Faramarz H. Samie
1   Department of Surgery, Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 February 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Previous scar scales have focused on verbal descriptions. A nonverbal visual assessment tool would provide a simple way for patients and physicians to quantify scar appearance. The authors sought to use a validated visual assessment tool for linear surgical scars to assess linear scars on the face and to determine whether patients and surgeons rate scars similarly. A total of 143 patients with linear facial scars resulting from repair of Mohs micrographic surgery defects used the visual assessment tool to rate their surgical scar. Six physicians used the tool to rate a subset of the patients' scar photographs. The scar ratings for patients and physicians were compared. Among the scars rated by both the patients and physicians (n = 79), patients had a significantly lower mean (i.e., more favorable) rating compared with the physicians. This was a single-center study including only Caucasian patients. The visual assessment tool to rate linear surgical scars provided a simple method for both patients and physicians to assess the overall appearance of postsurgical scars. Difference in the scar ranking between patients and physicians indicate the importance of incorporating both patient and physician point of view when assessing scars.

Keywords

scar - scar scale - Mohs
 

  • References

  • 1 Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (6) 713-720
    Google Scholar
  • van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CM, van Zuijlen PP. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (2) 514-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sobanko JF, Sarwer DB, Zvargulis Z, Miller CJ. Importance of physical appearance in patients with skin cancer. Dermatol Surg 2015; 41 (2) 183-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baryza MJ, Baryza GA. The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehabil 1995; 16 (5) 535-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kantor J. Utilizing the Patient Attitudes to Scarring Scale (PASS) to develop an outcome measure for postoperative scarring: a study in 430 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016; 74 (6) 1280-1281.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schooler JW, Engstler-Schooler TY. Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: some things are better left unsaid. Cognit Psychol 1990; 22 (1) 36-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kerrigan CL, Homa K. Visual assessment of linear scars: a new tool. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (5) 1513-1519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 2010; 10: e43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 van der Wal MB, Tuinebreijer WE, Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PP. Differential item functioning in the observer scale of the POSAS for different scar types. Qual Life Res 2014; 23 (7) 2037-2045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tyack Z, Simons M, Spinks A, Wasiak J. A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use. Burns 2012; 38 (1) 6-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brusselaers N, Pirayesh A, Hoeksema H, Verbelen J, Blot S, Monstrey S. Burn scar assessment: a systematic review of different scar scales. J Surg Res 2010; 164 (1) e115-e123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Raklyar E, Zloty DM. Use of a patient and observer scar assessment scale to evaluate the V-Y advancement flap for reconstruction of medial cheek defects. Dermatol Surg 2012; 38 (12) 1968-1974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hollander JE, Blasko B, Singer AJ, Valentine S, Thode Jr HC, Henry MC. Poor correlation of short- and long-term cosmetic appearance of repaired lacerations. Acad Emerg Med 1995; 2 (11) 983-987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Poetschke J, Schwaiger H, Gauglitz GG. Current and emerging options for documenting scars and evaluating therapeutic progress. Dermatol Surg 2016; 43 (Suppl. 01) S25-S36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Finlay AY, Khan GK. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)--a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol 1994; 19 (3) 210-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bock O, Schmid-Ott G, Malewski P, Mrowietz U. Quality of life of patients with keloid and hypertrophic scarring. Arch Dermatol Res 2006; 297 (10) 433-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Toledano AH, Bollet MA, Fourquet A , et al. Does concurrent radiochemotherapy affect cosmetic results in the adjuvant setting after breast-conserving surgery? Results of the ARCOSEIN multicenter, Phase III study: patients' and doctors' views. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68 (1) 66-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S , et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 366 (9503): 2087-2106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hoeller U, Kuhlmey A, Bajrovic A , et al. Cosmesis from the patient's and the doctor's view. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57 (2) 345-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dillman DA. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR , et al. Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. Comparison of patients' ratings, observers' ratings, and objective assessments. Radiother Oncol 1992; 25 (3) 153-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar