Leyva-Gómez G, Zacáula-Juárez N, Álvarez-Camacho M, Tolentino-Bazán K, Morales-García M

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 88-93
PDF size: 232.00 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Burn injuries represent a problem of important public attention from primary care to the patient’s inclusion in social and work life. The functional capacity of the skin in patients with burn sequelae is unknown until now because there are no well established studies with adequate methods. In this investigation, the main sources of variation were standardized in a person without injury and later in a patient with burn scars. Subsequently, different biomechanical parameters of the patient were determined by means of the 2 mm aperture cutometer probe and a negative pressure of 450 mbar with 2 seconds of suction and 2 seconds of relaxation in a series of 10 suction / relaxation cycles, each series by triplicate. In addition, moisture values of the stratum corneum were recorded by electrical resistance, and the presence of melanin and hemoglobin by optical methods at different wavelengths. In the analyzed patient, a biomechanical recovery of 60% was determined after 11 weeks of injury. In addition, the grafted area showed less moisture, less melanin and greater erythema. The suction/relaxation method by negative pressure is quick, with easy implementation and does not cause any discomfort in the patient. The relative parameters obtained are useful to relate particular skin behaviors such as elasticity and viscoelasticity, and therefore to seek suitable treatments for the patient.

REFERENCES

1. Modelo para la Prevención de Quemaduras en Grupos Vulnerables en México. Primera edición. México. Secretaría de Salud. 2016.

2. Moctezuma-Paz LE, Páez-Franco I, Jiménez-González S, Miguel-Jaimes KD, Foncerrada-Ortega G y cols. Epidemiología de las quemaduras en México. Rev Esp Méd Quir. 2015; 20: 78-82.

3. Orozco-Valerio MJ, Miranda-Altamirano RA, Méndez Magaña AC, Celis A. Tendencia de mortalidad por quemaduras en México, 1979-2009. Gaceta Médica de México. 2012; 148: 349-357.

4. Tyack Z, Wasiak J, Spinks A, Kimble R, Simons M. A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use. Burns. 2013; 39 (7): 1341-1350.

5. Nguyen TA, Feldstein SI, Shumaker PR, Krakowski AC. A review of scar assessment scales. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015; 34: 28-36.

6. Bae SH, Bae YC. Analysis of frequency of use of different scar assessment scales based on the scar condition and treatment method. Arch Plast Surg. 2014; 41: 111-115.

7. Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010; 10: e43.

8. Tyack Z, Simons M, Spinks A, Wasiak J. A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use. Burns. 2012; 38: 6-18.

9. Lee KC, Dretzke J, Grover L, Logan A, Moiemen N. A systematic review of objective burn scar measurements. Burns Trauma. 2016; 4: 14.

10. Ud-Din S, Bayat A. Non-invasive objective devices for monitoring the inflammatory, proliferative and remodelling phases of cutaneous wound healing and skin scarring. Exp Dermatol. 2016; 25: 579-585.

11. Perry DM, McGrouther DA, Bayat A. Current tools for noninvasive objective assessment of skin scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 126: 912-923.

12. Dobrev H. Cutometer®. In: Berardesca E, Maibach H, Wilhelm KP. Non invasive diagnostic techniques in clinical dermatology. Berlin: Springer; 2014. pp. 315-338.

13. Holt B, Tripathi A, Morgan J. Viscoelastic response of human skin to low magnitude physiologically relevant shear. J Biomech. 2008; 41: 2689-2695.

14. Corr DT, Hart DA. Biomechanics of scar tissue and uninjured skin. Adv Wound Care. 2013; 2: 37-43.

15. Nedelec B, Correa JA, de Oliveira A, LaSalle L, Perrault I. Longitudinal burn scar quantification. Burns. 2014; 40: 1504-1512.

16. Nedelec B, Correa JA, Rachelska G, Armour A, LaSalle L. Quantitative measurement of hypertrophic scar: interrater reliability and concurrent validity. J Burn Care Res. 2008; 29: 501-511.