Ingrid Steinvall, Sharon Kennedy, Matilda Karlsson, Mohamed A Ellabban, Folke Sjöberg, Caroline Andersson, Moustafa Elmasry, Islam Abdelrahman
{"title":"Evaluating scar outcomes in pediatric burn patients following skin grafting.","authors":"Ingrid Steinvall, Sharon Kennedy, Matilda Karlsson, Mohamed A Ellabban, Folke Sjöberg, Caroline Andersson, Moustafa Elmasry, Islam Abdelrahman","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-06378-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scarring and its long-term sequelae, contribute significantly to morbidity following burn injuries. Factors associated with less favourable scar outcomes include the depth of burn, younger age, pigmented skin types and prolonged healing times. The aim of primary burn surgery is to debride non-viable tissue, to enable healing. However, international consensus regarding the optimal timing for debridement and grafting in pediatric patients with burns is lacking. Delayed wound healing is thought to increase the risk of poor scar quality, however, the evidence for this is weak with few studies investigating long-term outcomes in pediatric patients. The aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of patient and treatment factors on scar quality, one year after skin grafting in pediatric patients with burns. Patient factors included age, skin type, and site of burn, while treatment factors included timing of surgery, type of surgery, and healing times. Pediatric patients (age < 18 years) presenting to a National Burn Unit from 2011 until 2020, inclusive were considered for inclusion in the study. Burn injuries between 1% and 14.9% total body surface area (TBSA) and who required skin grafting for the primary treatment of their burn, were included. Patients who failed to attend their 12-month follow-up visit were excluded. Standardised clinical photographs were assessed using a modified version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, version 2.0 (POSAS). Thirty children (median age 3.9 years) were included. Factors with an independent effect on higher (worse) POSAS scores were younger age at the time of injury (p < 0.001), body site of the trunk (p < 0.002), or the lower extremity (p < 0.001) and a longer duration of healing time after skin grafting (p = 0.003). The duration of time between injury and surgery was not an independent factor for POSAS scores (p = 0.56). We had insufficient numbers to discriminate differences in scar quality for different graft types; meshed versus non-meshed. In this study, we found that long-term scar outcomes in pediatric burn patients after skin grafting were worse for those injured at a younger age, with burns on the trunk or lower extremity, or with prolonged healing time after grafting. The robustness of this conclusion is limited by the small sample size of the study cohort and by our use of photographic scar assessment .</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"20205"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12181261/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06378-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Scarring and its long-term sequelae, contribute significantly to morbidity following burn injuries. Factors associated with less favourable scar outcomes include the depth of burn, younger age, pigmented skin types and prolonged healing times. The aim of primary burn surgery is to debride non-viable tissue, to enable healing. However, international consensus regarding the optimal timing for debridement and grafting in pediatric patients with burns is lacking. Delayed wound healing is thought to increase the risk of poor scar quality, however, the evidence for this is weak with few studies investigating long-term outcomes in pediatric patients. The aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of patient and treatment factors on scar quality, one year after skin grafting in pediatric patients with burns. Patient factors included age, skin type, and site of burn, while treatment factors included timing of surgery, type of surgery, and healing times. Pediatric patients (age < 18 years) presenting to a National Burn Unit from 2011 until 2020, inclusive were considered for inclusion in the study. Burn injuries between 1% and 14.9% total body surface area (TBSA) and who required skin grafting for the primary treatment of their burn, were included. Patients who failed to attend their 12-month follow-up visit were excluded. Standardised clinical photographs were assessed using a modified version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, version 2.0 (POSAS). Thirty children (median age 3.9 years) were included. Factors with an independent effect on higher (worse) POSAS scores were younger age at the time of injury (p < 0.001), body site of the trunk (p < 0.002), or the lower extremity (p < 0.001) and a longer duration of healing time after skin grafting (p = 0.003). The duration of time between injury and surgery was not an independent factor for POSAS scores (p = 0.56). We had insufficient numbers to discriminate differences in scar quality for different graft types; meshed versus non-meshed. In this study, we found that long-term scar outcomes in pediatric burn patients after skin grafting were worse for those injured at a younger age, with burns on the trunk or lower extremity, or with prolonged healing time after grafting. The robustness of this conclusion is limited by the small sample size of the study cohort and by our use of photographic scar assessment .
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.