Mr Brandon Meikle¹, Associate Professor Megan Simons², Mrs Tamsin Mahoney³, Professor Roy Kimble⁴, Dr Tristan Reddan⁵, Dr Bryan Dai⁶, Dr Zephanie Tyack¹

¹Centre For Children’s Burns And Trauma Research, The University Of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia, ²Centre for Children’s Burns and Trauma Research, Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burns Centre, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia, ³Surgical, Treatment and Rehabilitation Services (STARS), Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Australia, ⁴Centre for Children’s Burns and Trauma Research, Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burns Centre, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia, ⁵Medical Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia, ⁶Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia

Abstract:

Background: The accurate and reproducible measurement of scar thickness is an important aspect of long-term burn management, both in clinical and research contexts. Ultrasonography has shown great promise and widespread use as a quantitative method of scar thickness measurement. Despite its popularity, the reporting of ultrasound methods for scar thickness measurement remains poor. We conducted a scoping review to determine what methods have been used to measure the thickness of traumatic scarring (i.e., following cutaneous sharp object penetration or burns) and the reproducibility of methods.

Methods: A structured search was conducted using terms related to “ultrasound”, “skin”, “thickness” and “measure”. The search was run in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases with no date limits imposed (date last searched 08/09/2021). Records were included if ultrasound measurements were taken of a traumatic scar or skin thickness using B-mode, high-frequency or ultra-high frequency ultrasound. Data was extracted from included records on ultrasound methods including psychometric properties, methods, and feasibility and clinical outcomes.

Results: Following screening, 101 records were included for extraction including 33 abstracts. Psychometric properties, feasibility outcomes, and methods used for relocation of scar sites were rarely reported.  Methods used included selecting the worst scar site and measuring a central area of scarring.

Discussion: This scoping review identified a lack of reporting of methods used to reproduce the ultrasound measurement of traumatic scars. Suggestions will be provided for greater standardisation of methods to improve the accuracy of ultrasound measurements of scar thickness and permit comparison between studies.

Biography:

Brandon Meikle has a Bachelor of Biomedical Science (Honours), and is currently completing his PhD through The University of Queensland. He is based in the Centre for Children’s Burns and Trauma Research, where his research is focussed on minimally-invasive scar management and the qualitative and quantitative measurement of burn scars.