IntroductionA reproducible, standardised model for cutaneous scar tissue to assess therapeutics is crucial to the progress of the field. A systematic review was performed to critically evaluate scarring models in both animal and human research.MethodAll studies in which cutaneous scars are modelling in animals or humans were included. Models that were focused on the wound healing process or those in humans with scars from an existing injury were excluded. Ovid Medline® was searched on 25 February 2019 to perform two near identical searches; one aimed at animals and the other aimed at humans. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for study selection. Full texts of potentially suitable studies were then obtained for analysis.ResultsThe animal kingdom search yielded 818 results, of which 71 were included in the review. Animals utilised included rabbits, mice, pigs, dogs and primates. Methods used for creating scar tissue included sharp excision, dermatome injury, thermal injury and injection of fibrotic substances. The search for scar assessment in humans yielded 287 results, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. In all human studies, sharp incision was used to create scar tissue. Some studies focused on patients before or after elective surgery, including bilateral breast reduction, knee replacement or midline sternotomy.DiscussionThe rabbit ear scar model was the most popular tool for scar research, although pigs produce scar tissue which most closely resembles that of humans. Immunodeficient mouse models allow for in vivo engraftment and study of human scar tissue, however, there are limitations relating to the systemic response to these xenografts. Factors that determine the use of animals include cost of housing requirements, genetic traceability, and ethical concerns. In humans, surgical patients are often studied for scarring responses and outcomes, but reproducibility and patient factors that impact healing can limit interpretation. Human tissue use in vitro may serve as a good basis to rapidly screen and assess treatments prior to clinical use, with the advantage of reduced cost and setup requirements.

IntroductionPaediatric burns are a common clinical presentation. The long-term scar outcomes in paediatric burns patients are relatively unknown as most are discharged after 6 weeks follow up, apart from the small number that are followed up by scar services depending on geographical availability. We aimed to determine whether the long-term scarring outcomes are significantly different in those who had surgical treatment with Versajet® debridement and Biobrane®, vs. those treated conservatively with non-adherent Mepitel® and Acticoat® dressings, in a cohort of paediatric burns patients.MethodsThe parents of all paediatric burns patients admitted to Stoke Mandeville Hospital from October 2014 to September 2017 were contacted by telephone to fill in the paediatric Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP), the only patient reported outcome measure (PROM) specifically aimed at children. The results from the questionnaires underwent statistical analysis to see if there was a significant difference in questionnaire scores between children treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively.ResultsA total of 107 children were admitted in the timeframe, responses were received from 34 patients with 13 having been treated surgically and 21 having been treated conservatively. In all 58 questions that make up the BBSIP, there was no statistically significant difference observed in the scores of those treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively. For 31 questions on the BBSIP, the lowest score indicating the best outcome was observed in all patients in both groups.DiscussionSurgical management for burns is always the last resort. Our results could be interpreted to suggest clinicians need not fear the longer-term impact a scar may have when deciding whether to treat a paediatric burns patient surgically or conservatively. This study is the first to assess longer-term scar outcomes using the BBSIP. A larger data set and comparison with other burn units in the UK may help to provide more information on scar outcomes between different methods of surgical and conservative treatment. We found no statistically significant difference in the long-term scar outcomes as assessed by the BBSIP in paediatric burn patients treated with Versajet® debridement and Biobrane®, vs. those treated conservatively with non-adherent Mepitel® and Acticoat® dressings.