A prospective randomized pilot study evaluating the scar outcome after gluteal dermis fat graft with and without kinesiotaping

Annemarie Klingenstein, Aylin Garip-Kuebler, Daniel R Muth, Christoph Hintschich, Annemarie Klingenstein, Aylin Garip-Kuebler, Daniel R Muth, Christoph Hintschich

Abstract

Purpose: To compare gluteal wound healing after dermis fat graft (DFG) implantation in patients with and without local application of kinesiotapes.

Methods: In this prospective, single-center analysis, 16 patients who underwent DFG implantation were randomized in two groups. Wound healing was compared 4-6 weeks after therapy and 3 months later (after application of 2 cycles of kinesiotaping for 2-3 weeks in the case and no specific therapy in the control group). Demographic data, patient content and wound healing were assessed. Scarring was graded (0-3) by evaluation of photodocumentation by 2 blinded, independent observers.

Results: Mean scar grading by both observers decreased from 2.31 ± 0.48 to 1.13 ± 0.72 in the case and from 2.38 ± 0.52 to 1.44 ± 0.50 in the control group with interobserver agreement on scar grading being substantial to almost perfect in both groups. Scar length decreased significantly in both groups (p = 0.008). Scar prominence decreased in 2/3 of cases in the case and 1/3 in the control group. Scar coloring significantly improved in the case group alone (p = 0.031).

Conclusion: No functionally impairing or painful scar developed. No adverse effects occurred after kinesiotaping. Gluteal scars shortened significantly over time and were significantly paler in the case group. Kinesiotaping may improve scar elevation over no specific scar therapy.

Keywords: Dermis fat graft; Enucleation; Kinesiotaping; Scar therapy.

Conflict of interest statement

No conflicting relationship exists for any author.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Scar graded as not visible (grade 0, upper left), minimally visible (grade 1, upper right), moderately visible (grade 2, lower left) and maximally visible (grade 3, lower right)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Gluteal scar without specific therapy. Scar graded as 3/3 (observer 1/2) at a V1 (26 days after surgery; 3.5 cm) and as 2/2 at b V2 (117 days after surgery; 3.4 cm) without kinesiotaping
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Gluteal scar treated with kinesiotapes. Scar graded as 3/3 at a V1 (also 33 days after surgery; length 3.9 cm) and graded as 1/2 at b V2 (124 days after surgery; length 3.6 cm) after application of 2 cycles of kinesiotaping demonstrating less scar coloring at V2

References

    1. Smith B, Bosniak SL, Lisman RD. An autogenous kinetic dermis-fat orbital implant: an updated technique. Ophthalmology. 1982;89(9):1067–1071. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(82)34690-4.
    1. Nentwich MM, Schebitz-Walter K, Hirneiss C, Hintschich C. Dermis fat grafts as primary and secondary orbital implants. Orbit. 2014;33(1):33–38. doi: 10.3109/01676830.2013.844172.
    1. Jovanovic N, Carniciu AL, Russell WW, Jarocki A, Kahana A. Reconstruction of the orbit and anophthalmic socket using the dermis fat graft: a major review. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(6):529–539. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001610.
    1. Hintschich CR, Beyer-Machule CK. Dermal fatty tissue transplant as primary and secondary orbital implant. Complications and results. Ophthalmologe. 1996;93(5):617–622. doi: 10.1007/s003470050048.
    1. Wladis EJ, Aakalu VK, Sobel RK, Yen MT, Bilyk JR, Mawn LA. Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Opthalmology. 2018;125(2):311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.006.
    1. Trichopoulos N, Augsburger JJ. Enucleation with unwrapped porous and nonporous orbital implants: a 15-year experience. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;21(5):331–336. doi: 10.1097/01.iop.0000175034.88019.a5.
    1. Lin CW, Liao SL. Long-term complications of different porous orbital implants: a 21-year review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(5):681–685. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308932.
    1. Guthoff R, Vick HP, Schaudig U. Prevention of postenucleation syndrome: the hydroxylapatite silicone implant. Preliminary experimental studies and initial clinical experiences. Ophthalmologe. 1995;92(2):198–205.
    1. Hintschich C. Dermofat grafting. Ophthalmologe. 2017;114(8):755–758. doi: 10.1007/s00347-017-0528-5.
    1. Lee HJ, Jang Y. Recent understandings of biology, prophylaxis and treatment strategies for hypertrophic scars and keloids. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(3):711. doi: 10.3390/ijms19030711.
    1. Lee Peng G, Kerolus JL. Management of surgical scars. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2019;27(4):513–517. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2019.07.013.
    1. Buchanan PJ, Kung TA, Cederna PS. Evidence-based medicine: wound closure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):257S–270S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002775.
    1. Zuber TJ. The mattress sutures: vertical, horizontal, and corner stitch. Am Fam Physician. 2002;66(12):2231–2236.
    1. Stegman SJ, Tromovitch TA, Glogau RG. Basics of dermatologic surgery. Chicago: Year Book Medical; 1982. pp. 42–45.
    1. Stasko T. Advanced suturing techniques and layered closures. In: Wheeland RG, editor. Cutaneous surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1994. pp. 304–317.
    1. Cafasso J, Hannan C (2017) . Accessed, 27 Dec 2020
    1. Son D, Harijan A. Overview of surgical scar prevention and management. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29(6):751–757. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.6.751.
    1. Sawada Y, Sone K. Treatment of scars and keloids with a cream containing silicone oil. Br J Plast Surg. 1990;43(6):683–688. doi: 10.1016/0305-4179(90)90008-k.
    1. Chang CC, Kuo YF, Chiu HC, Lee JL, Wong TW, Jee SH. Hydration, not silicone, modulates the effects of keratinocytes on fibroblasts. J Surg Res. 1995;59(6):705–711. doi: 10.1006/jsre.1995.1227.
    1. Borgognoni L. Biological effects of silicone gel sheeting. Wound Repair Regen. 2002;10(2):118–21. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-475x.2002.00205.x.
    1. Atkinson JM, McKenna KT, Barnett AG, McGrath DJ, Rudd M. A randomized, controlled trial to determine the efficacy of paper tape in preventing hypertrophic scar formation in surgical incisions that traverse Langer’s skin tension lines. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(6):1648–1656. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000187147.73963.a5.
    1. Lin Y, Ting P, Hsu K. Comparison of silicone sheets and paper tape for the management of postoperative scars: a randomized comparative study. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2020;33(6):1–6. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000661932.67974.76d.
    1. Tang YW. Intra- and postoperative steroid injections for keloids and hypertrophic scars. Br J Plast Surg. 1992;45(5):371–373. doi: 10.1016/0007-1226(92)90007-k.
    1. Rosen DJ, Patel MK, Freeman K, Weiss PR. A primary protocol for the management of ear keloids: results of excision combined with intraoperative and postoperative steroid injections. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(5):1395–1400. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000279373.25099.2a.
    1. Bouzari N, Davis SC, Nouri K. Laser treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars. Int J Dermatol. 2007;46(1):80–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2007.03104.x.
    1. Parrett BM, Donelan MB. Pulsed dye laser in burn scars: current concepts and future directions. Burns. 2010;36(4):443–449. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2009.08.015.
    1. nhs (2017) . Accessed, 28 Dec 2020
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Shin J, Cho JT, Park SI, Jung SN. Combination therapy using non-ablative fractional laser and intralesional triamcinolone injection for hypertrophic scars and keloids treatment. Int Wound J. 2019;16(6):1450–1456. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13213.
    1. Niessen FB, Spauwen PH, Schalkwijk J, Kon M. On the nature of hypertrophic scars and keloids: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(5):1435–1458. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199910000-00031.
    1. Chow L, Yick KL, Kwan MY, Yuen CF, Ng SP, Annie Y, Yip J. Customized fabrication approach for hypertrophic scar treatment: 3D printed fabric silicone composite. Int J Bioprinting. 2020 doi: 10.18063/ijb.v6i2.262.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться