This pilot study investigates whether pressure and silicone therapy used simultaneously are more effective in treating multiple characteristics of hypertrophic scars than pressure alone. A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted. Twenty-two participants with hypertrophic burn scars were randomized to receive Jobskin pressure garments and Mepiform silicone sheeting or Jobskin pressure garments alone. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used to measure multiple scar characteristics at baseline, week 12, and week 24. No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of change of the VSS scores between the pressure therapy (PT) group and the pressure therapy and silicone group at week 12 or week 24; however, the mean scores of both groups reduced over 24 weeks. There were no statistically significant changes in the VSS subscores (scar height, vascularity, pliability, and pigmentation) from baseline to week 12 or week 24. A statistically significant relationship was observed between the VSS score and TBSA burned (<30%) in the PT group at baseline (P<.05), over 12 weeks (P<.05), and over 24 weeks (P<.05). Given the limitations of this study, especially the small sample size, further research is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn on this therapy approach. However, this pilot study has discussed the recurring issues in the research regarding these controversial treatments and has yielded potential for further investigation in a fully powered randomized controlled trial.

No abstract

4.

Introduction The Jebsen–Taylor Hand Function Test is a standardised assessment that relies upon precise test administration through the placement of a number of small items in each subset. This set up has been criticised in the literature as being time consuming and open to non-precision error in item placement. This study investigates whether application of a novel template board to the testing procedure of the Jebsen–Taylor Hand Function Test enhances accuracy and reduces the clinical time taken to administer the test when compared to non-template-based testing practices. Methods The template board was marked to highlight where each test item should precisely be located during subtest administration. Additionally, three therapists completed 10 timed trials each in test preparation and setting up subtests 2, 3, 6 and 7 with and without the template to assess efficiency. Results Results show that set up without using a template resulted in an average total of 10% accuracy in subtest 2, 0% accuracy in subtest 3 and 3.33% accuracy in subtests 6 and 7. The acceptable value on these tests to demonstrate accuracy is 100% (p < 0.05). The results also demonstrate that the total time to complete test set up was significantly less when using the template board (p < 0.05). Discussion This study demonstrates the difficulty in achieving accuracy without a template board and the associated inefficiencies. The availability of standardised assessments that are easy to use in clinical practice and that have sound reliability, validity and responsiveness is necessary to objectively and accurately measure hand function.