↓ Skip to main content

Long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2599-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine M. Legemate, Harold Goei, Esther Middelkoop, Irma M. M. H. Oen, Tim H. J. Nijhuis, Kelly A. A. Kwa, Paul P. M. van Zuijlen, Gerard I. J. M. Beerthuizen, Marianne K. Nieuwenhuis, Margriet E. van Baar, Cornelis H. van der Vlies

Abstract

Deep dermal burns require tangential excision of non-viable tissue and skin grafting to improve wound healing and burn-scar quality. Tangential excision is conventionally performed with a knife, but during the last decade hydrosurgery has become popular as a new tool for tangential excision. Hydrosurgery is generally thought to be a more precise and controlled manner of burn debridement leading to preservation of viable tissue and, therefore, better scar quality. Although scar quality is considered to be one of the most important outcomes in burn surgery today, no randomized controlled study has compared the effect of these two common treatment modalities with scar quality as a primary outcome. The aim of this study is, therefore, to compare long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional tangential excision in deep dermal burns. A multicenter, randomized, intra-patient, controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centers of Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen. All patients with deep dermal burns that require excision and grafting are eligible. Exclusion criteria are: a burn wound < 50 cm2, total body surface area (TBSA) burned > 30%, full-thickness burns, chemical or electrical burns, infected wounds (clinical symptoms in combination with positive wound swabs), insufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language, patients that are unlikely to comply with requirements of the study protocol and follow-up, and patients who are (temporarily) incompetent because of sedation and/or intubation. A total of 137 patients will be included. Comparable wound areas A and B will be appointed, randomized and either excised conventionally with a knife or with the hydrosurgery system. The primary outcome is scar quality measured by the observer score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS); a subjective scar-assessment instrument, consisting of two separate six-item scales (observer and patient) that are both scored on a 10-point rating scale. This study will contribute to the optimal surgical treatment of patients with deep dermal burn wounds. Dutch Trial Register, NTR6232 . Registered on 23 January 2017.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Lecturer 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 9%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 15 32%