Skin fibrosis places an enormous burden on patients and society, but disagreement exists over methods to quantify severity of skin scarring. A suction cutometer measures skin elasticity in vivo, but it has not been widely adopted because of inconsistency in data produced. We investigated variability of several dimensionless parameters generated by the cutometer to improve their precision and accuracy.
Approach:
Twenty adult human subjects underwent suction cutometer measurement of normal skin (NS) and fibrotic scars (FS). Using Mode 1, each subject underwent five trials with each trial containing four curves. R0/2/5/6/7 and Q1/2/3 data were collected. Analyses were performed on these calculated parameters.
Results:
R0/2/5/6/7 and Q1/2 parameters from curves 1 to 4 demonstrated significant differences, whereas these same parameters were not significantly different when only using curves 2–4. Individual analysis of all parameters between curve 1 and every subsequent curve was statistically significant for R0, R2, R5, R6, R7, Q1, and Q2. No differences were appreciated for parameter Q3. Comparison between NS and FS were significantly different for parameters R5, Q1, and Q3.
Innovation:
Our study is the first demonstration of accurate comparison between NS and FS using the dimensionless parameters of a suction cutometer.
Conclusions:
Measured parameters from the first curve of each trial were significantly different from subsequent curves for both NS and FS. Precision and reproducibility of data from dimensionless parameters can therefore be improved by removing the first curve. R5, Q1, and Q3 parameters differentiated NS as more elastic than FS.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SenCK, GordilloGM, RoyS, et al.Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen, 2009; 17:763–771.
2.
MarshallCD, HuMS, LeavittT, BarnesLA, LorenzHP, LongakerMT. Cutaneous scarring: basic science, current treatments, and future directions. Adv Wound Care, 2016; 7:29–45.
3.
MarcenaroM, SaccoS, PentimalliS, et al.Measures of late effects in conservative treatment of breast cancer with standard or hypofractionated radiotherapy. Tumori, 2004; 90:586–591.
FahyEJ, GriffinM, LavinC, AbbasD, LongakerMT, WanD. The adrenergic system in plastic and reconstructive surgery: physiology and clinical considerations. Ann Plast Surg 2021 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002706.
6.
WilkesGL, BrownIA, WildnauerRH. The biomechanical properties of skin. CRC Crit Rev Bioeng, 1973; 1:453–495.
7.
DraaijersLJ, BotmanYAM, TempelmanFRH, KreisRW, MiddelkoopE, van ZuijlenPPM. Skin elasticity meter or subjective evaluation in scars: a reliability assessment. Burns, 2004; 30:109–114.
8.
LeeKC, BamfordA, GardinerF, et al.Investigating the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools. Burns, 2019; 45:1311–1324.
9.
BuscheMN, ThraenA-CJ, GohritzA, RennekampffH-O, VogtPM. Burn Scar Evaluation Using the Cutometer® MPA 580 in Comparison to “Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale”. and “Vancouver Scar Scale.” J Burn Care Res, 2018; 39:516–526.
10.
MüllerB, ElrodJ, PensalfiniM, et al.A novel ultra-light suction device for mechanical characterization of skin. PLoS One, 2018; 13:e0201440.
11.
NedelecB, CorreaJA, RachelskaG, ArmourA, LaSalleL. Quantitative measurement of hypertrophic scar: interrater reliability and concurrent validity. J Burn Care Res, 2008; 29:501–511.
12.
NedelecB, CorreaJA, RachelskaG, ArmourA, LaSalleL. Quantitative measurement of hypertrophic scar: intrarater reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. J Burn Care Res, 2008; 29:489–500.
13.
EnomotoDNH, MekkesJR, BossuytPMM, HoekzemaR, BosJD. Quantification of cutaneous sclerosis with a skin elasticity meter in patients with generalized scleroderma. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1996; 35:381–387.
14.
BonaparteJP, ChungJ. The effect of probe placement on inter-trial variability when using the Cutometer MPA 580. J Med Eng Technol, 2014; 38:85–89.
15.
BonaparteJP, EllisD, ChungJ. The effect of probe to skin contact force on Cutometer MPA 580 measurements. J Med Eng Technol, 2013; 37:208–212.
16.
MascharakS, desJardins-ParkHE, DavittMF, et al.Preventing Engrailed-1 activation in fibroblasts yields wound regeneration without scarring. Science, 2021; 372:eaba2374.
17.
ShenAH, BorrelliMR, AdemS, et al.Prophylactic treatment with transdermal deferoxamine mitigates radiation-induced skin fibrosis. Sci Rep, 2020; 10:12346.
18.
BorrelliMR, DeleonNMD, AdemS, et al.Grafted Fat Depletes the Profibrotic Engrailed-1-Positive Fibroblast Subpopulation and Ameliorates Radiation-Induced Scalp Fibrosis. J Am Coll Surg, 2020; 231:E186.
19.
ChinCJ, FranklinJH, TurnerB, et al.A novel tool for the objective measurement of neck fibrosis: validation in clinical practice. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2012; 41:320–326.
20.
KlosováH, ŠtětinskýJ, BryjováI, HledíkS, KleinL. Objective evaluation of the effect of autologous platelet concentrate on post-operative scarring in deep burns. Burns, 2013; 39:1263–1276.
21.
LangtonAK, GrahamHK, GriffithsCEM, WatsonREB. Ageing significantly impacts the biomechanical function and structural composition of skin. Exp Dermatol, 2019; 28:981–984.
22.
WilhelmiBJ, BlackwellSJ, MancollJS, PhillipsLG. Creep vs. stretch: a review of the viscoelastic properties of skin. Ann Plast Surg, 1998; 41:215–219.
23.
ThorntonGM, LeaskGP, ShriveNG, FrankCB. Early medial collateral ligament scars have inferior creep behaviour. J Orthop Res, 2000; 18:238–246.
24.
ScottPG, DoddCM, TredgetEE, GhaharyA, RahemtullaF. Chemical characterization and quantification of proteoglycans in human post-burn hypertrophic and mature scars. Clin Sci, 1996; 90:417–425.
25.
NedelecB, ForgetNJ, HurtubiseT, et al.Skin characteristics: normative data for elasticity, erythema, melanin, and thickness at 16 different anatomical locations. Skin Res Technol, 2016; 22:263–275.
26.
EverettJS, SommersMS. Skin viscoelasticity: physiologic mechanisms, measurement issues, and application to nursing science. Biol Res Nurs, 2013; 15:338–346.
27.
KangMJ, KimB, HwangS, YooHH. Experimentally derived viscoelastic properties of human skin and muscle in vitro. Med Eng Phys, 2018; 61:25–31.
28.
XuF, LuT. Introduction to Skin Biothermomechanics and Thermal Pain. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2011.
29.
OhnoH, NishimuraN, YamadaK, et al.Effects of water nanodroplets on skin moisture and viscoelasticity during air-conditioning. Skin Res Technol, 2013; 19:375–383.
30.
JoodakiH, PanzerMB. Skin mechanical properties and modeling: a review. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H], 2018; 232:323–343.
31.
DobrevH.Novel ideas: the increased skin viscoelasticity - a possible new fifth sign for the very early diagnosis of systemic sclerosis. Curr Rheumatol Rev, 2013; 9:261–267.
32.
MüllerB, RubyL, JordanS, RomingerMB, MazzaE, DistlerO. Validation of the suction device Nimble for the assessment of skin fibrosis in systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Res Ther, 2020; 22:128.
33.
Nikkels-TassoudjiN, HenryF, Piérard-FranchimontC, PiérardGE. Computerized evaluation of skin stiffening in scleroderma. Eur J Clin Invest, 1996; 26:457–460.
34.
KantorJ.Relative benefits of the SCAR scale compared with the patient and observer scar assessment scale for postreconstructive surgery photographic scar assessment rating. Dermatol Surg, 2021; 47:728–729.
35.
ThompsonCM, SoodRF, HonariS, CarrougherGJ, GibranNS. What score on the Vancouver Scar Scale constitutes a hypertrophic scar? Results from a survey of North American burn-care providers. Burns, 2015; 41:1442–1448.
36.
QuinnJV, WellsGA. An assessment of clinical wound evaluation scales. Acad Emerg Med, 1998; 5:583–586.
37.
ChungJ-H, KwonS-H, KimK-J, et al.Reliability of the patient and observer scar assessment scale in evaluating linear scars after thyroidectomy. Adv Skin Wound Care, 2021; 34:1–6.
38.
HallamMJ, McNaughtK, ThomasAN, NdukaC. A practical and objective approach to scar colour assessment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 2013; 66:e271–e276.
39.
JangSI, KimEJ, ParkH, et al.A quantitative evaluation method using processed optical images and analysis of age-dependent changes on nasolabial lines. Skin Res Technol, 2015; 21:201–206.
40.
WooMS, MoonKJ, JungHY, et al.Comparison of skin elasticity test results from the Ballistometer® and Cutometer®. Skin Res Technol, 2014; 20:422–428.
41.
LeeKC, BamfordA, GardinerF, et al.Burns objective scar scale (BOSS): validation of an objective measurement devices based burn scar scale panel. Burns, 2020; 46:110–120.
42.
KawałkiewiczW, Matthews-KozaneckaM, Janus-KubiakM, KubiszL, Hojan-JezierskaD. Instrumental diagnosis of facial skin—A necessity or a pretreatment recommendation in esthetic medicine. J Cosmet Dermatol, 2021; 20:875–883.
43.
PriceK, MoiemenN, NiceL, MathersJ. Patient experience of scar assessment and the use of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation: a qualitative study. Burns Trauma, 2021; 9:tkab005.
44.
BaeSH, BaeYC. 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.
