PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The mechanisms underlying persistent scar pain are not fully elucidated and evidence for the clinical evaluation of scar pain is limited. This pilot observational study investigated participation data and sought to identify objective clinical scar evaluation measures for future trials.
UNASSIGNED: With ethical approval and consent, adults undergoing planned hand surgery were enrolled from one NHS hospital. At 1- and 4-months post-surgery scar thermal and mechanical pain thresholds were evaluated with quantitative sensory testing; peri-scar inflammation with infrared thermometry and pliability with durometry. Participation data were analysed with descriptive statistics; the association of clinical measures with patient reported scar pain was analysed.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-one participants (22% eligible patients) enrolled before study closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 13 completed follow up. No adverse events or dropouts resulted from clinical scar evaluation. Seventy percent of participants reported undertaking topical, nonprescription scar treatment independently. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) scores were dispersed across the score range, capturing variability in participant-reported scar symptoms. Scar morphology, pliability and inflammation were not associated with scar pain. Differences between scar and contralateral skin in thermal and mechanical pain sensitivity were identified.
UNASSIGNED: People with acute hand scars participate in clinical research and independently initiate scar treatment. Clinical testing of acute post-surgical hand scars is well tolerated. The NPSI demonstrates utility for exploring scar pain symptoms and may support the elucidation of mechanisms of persistent scar pain. Clinical tests of thermal and mechanical and sensitivity are promising candidate clinical measures of scar pain for future trials.
UNASSIGNED: Background: it is unknown why some scars remain painful long-term. We do not know if scar flexibility, inflammation or sensitivity to temperature or pressure relate to scar pain. We investigated if patients would enrol in scar research, if scar testing was tolerated and if clinical tests are useful for future scar studies. Study conduct: with ethical approval and consent, adult hand surgery patients were enrolled from one NHS hospital. Scar pain, inflammation and response to thermal, sharp and pressure tests were assessed at 1- and 4-months after surgery. Statistically, we analysed study participation, tolerance for clinical scar tests and if the scar tests related to scar pain. Findings: 21 participants (22% eligible patients) enrolled before study closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 13 completed follow up. No participants were injured due to scar testing. 70% of participants reported treating their scar independently. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) allows participants to give a broad range of answers about their scar symptoms. Scores for clinical tests of scar flexibility and inflammation did not relate to participant-reported scar pain. Scars were more sensitive to tests of pin prick and cold than unaffected skin. What we learned: people with new hand scars participate in research and independently initiate scar treatment. Clinical testing of post-surgical hand scars is well tolerated. The NPSI is useful for exploring scar pain symptoms and may help us to learn about persistent scar pain. Pinprick and cold clinical tests may be useful objective pain tests for future scar research.
UNASSIGNED: With ethical approval and consent, adults undergoing planned hand surgery were enrolled from one NHS hospital. At 1- and 4-months post-surgery scar thermal and mechanical pain thresholds were evaluated with quantitative sensory testing; peri-scar inflammation with infrared thermometry and pliability with durometry. Participation data were analysed with descriptive statistics; the association of clinical measures with patient reported scar pain was analysed.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-one participants (22% eligible patients) enrolled before study closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 13 completed follow up. No adverse events or dropouts resulted from clinical scar evaluation. Seventy percent of participants reported undertaking topical, nonprescription scar treatment independently. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) scores were dispersed across the score range, capturing variability in participant-reported scar symptoms. Scar morphology, pliability and inflammation were not associated with scar pain. Differences between scar and contralateral skin in thermal and mechanical pain sensitivity were identified.
UNASSIGNED: People with acute hand scars participate in clinical research and independently initiate scar treatment. Clinical testing of acute post-surgical hand scars is well tolerated. The NPSI demonstrates utility for exploring scar pain symptoms and may support the elucidation of mechanisms of persistent scar pain. Clinical tests of thermal and mechanical and sensitivity are promising candidate clinical measures of scar pain for future trials.
UNASSIGNED: Background: it is unknown why some scars remain painful long-term. We do not know if scar flexibility, inflammation or sensitivity to temperature or pressure relate to scar pain. We investigated if patients would enrol in scar research, if scar testing was tolerated and if clinical tests are useful for future scar studies. Study conduct: with ethical approval and consent, adult hand surgery patients were enrolled from one NHS hospital. Scar pain, inflammation and response to thermal, sharp and pressure tests were assessed at 1- and 4-months after surgery. Statistically, we analysed study participation, tolerance for clinical scar tests and if the scar tests related to scar pain. Findings: 21 participants (22% eligible patients) enrolled before study closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 13 completed follow up. No participants were injured due to scar testing. 70% of participants reported treating their scar independently. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) allows participants to give a broad range of answers about their scar symptoms. Scores for clinical tests of scar flexibility and inflammation did not relate to participant-reported scar pain. Scars were more sensitive to tests of pin prick and cold than unaffected skin. What we learned: people with new hand scars participate in research and independently initiate scar treatment. Clinical testing of post-surgical hand scars is well tolerated. The NPSI is useful for exploring scar pain symptoms and may help us to learn about persistent scar pain. Pinprick and cold clinical tests may be useful objective pain tests for future scar research.
摘要：
持续性瘢痕疼痛的潜在机制尚未完全阐明，临床评估瘢痕疼痛的证据有限。这项初步观察性研究调查了参与数据，并试图为未来的试验确定客观的临床瘢痕评估措施。
■经伦理批准和同意，我们从一家NHS医院招募了计划进行手外科手术的成人.在术后1个月和4个月时，通过定量感觉测试评估了疤痕的热和机械性疼痛阈值；通过红外测温法评估了疤痕周围的炎症，并通过硬度法评估了柔韧性。使用描述性统计分析参与数据；分析临床措施与患者报告的瘢痕疼痛的关联。
■由于COVID-19大流行，21名参与者（22％合格患者）在研究结束前登记；13人完成了随访。临床瘢痕评估未导致不良事件或脱落。70%的参与者报告说正在进行专题，非处方疤痕治疗独立。神经性疼痛症状清单（NPSI）评分分散在评分范围内，捕获参与者报告的瘢痕症状的变异性。瘢痕形态,柔韧性和炎症与瘢痕疼痛无关。确定了疤痕和对侧皮肤在热和机械疼痛敏感性方面的差异。
■患有急性手部疤痕的人参与临床研究并独立开始疤痕治疗。急性手术后手部疤痕的临床试验耐受性良好。NPSI证明了探索瘢痕疼痛症状的实用性，并可能支持阐明持续性瘢痕疼痛的机制。热，机械和敏感性的临床测试是未来试验中瘢痕疼痛的有希望的候选临床措施。
■背景：未知为什么有些疤痕会长期疼痛。我们不知道疤痕是否灵活，炎症或对温度或压力的敏感性与疤痕疼痛有关。我们调查了患者是否会参加疤痕研究，如果瘢痕测试是耐受的，如果临床试验对未来的瘢痕研究是有用的。研究行为：经伦理批准和同意，从一家NHS医院纳入成人手外科患者.疤痕疼痛，炎症和对热的反应，在手术后1个月和4个月进行了锐利和压力测试.统计上,我们分析了研究参与情况，对临床疤痕测试的耐受性，以及疤痕测试是否与疤痕疼痛有关。结果：由于COVID-19大流行，21名参与者（22％合格患者）在研究结束前登记；13人完成了随访。没有参与者因疤痕测试而受伤。70%的参与者报告说他们的疤痕是独立治疗的。神经性疼痛症状清单（NPSI）允许参与者提供有关其疤痕症状的广泛答案。瘢痕柔韧性和炎症的临床测试得分与参与者报告的瘢痕疼痛无关。与未受影响的皮肤相比，疤痕对针刺和寒冷的测试更敏感。我们了解到：有新的手疤痕的人参与研究并独立启动疤痕治疗。手术后手部疤痕的临床试验耐受性良好。NPSI有助于探索疤痕疼痛症状，并可能帮助我们了解持续性疤痕疼痛。针刺和寒冷的临床测试可能是未来疤痕研究的有用客观疼痛测试。
■经伦理批准和同意，我们从一家NHS医院招募了计划进行手外科手术的成人.在术后1个月和4个月时，通过定量感觉测试评估了疤痕的热和机械性疼痛阈值；通过红外测温法评估了疤痕周围的炎症，并通过硬度法评估了柔韧性。使用描述性统计分析参与数据；分析临床措施与患者报告的瘢痕疼痛的关联。
■由于COVID-19大流行，21名参与者（22％合格患者）在研究结束前登记；13人完成了随访。临床瘢痕评估未导致不良事件或脱落。70%的参与者报告说正在进行专题，非处方疤痕治疗独立。神经性疼痛症状清单（NPSI）评分分散在评分范围内，捕获参与者报告的瘢痕症状的变异性。瘢痕形态,柔韧性和炎症与瘢痕疼痛无关。确定了疤痕和对侧皮肤在热和机械疼痛敏感性方面的差异。
■患有急性手部疤痕的人参与临床研究并独立开始疤痕治疗。急性手术后手部疤痕的临床试验耐受性良好。NPSI证明了探索瘢痕疼痛症状的实用性，并可能支持阐明持续性瘢痕疼痛的机制。热，机械和敏感性的临床测试是未来试验中瘢痕疼痛的有希望的候选临床措施。
■背景：未知为什么有些疤痕会长期疼痛。我们不知道疤痕是否灵活，炎症或对温度或压力的敏感性与疤痕疼痛有关。我们调查了患者是否会参加疤痕研究，如果瘢痕测试是耐受的，如果临床试验对未来的瘢痕研究是有用的。研究行为：经伦理批准和同意，从一家NHS医院纳入成人手外科患者.疤痕疼痛，炎症和对热的反应，在手术后1个月和4个月进行了锐利和压力测试.统计上,我们分析了研究参与情况，对临床疤痕测试的耐受性，以及疤痕测试是否与疤痕疼痛有关。结果：由于COVID-19大流行，21名参与者（22％合格患者）在研究结束前登记；13人完成了随访。没有参与者因疤痕测试而受伤。70%的参与者报告说他们的疤痕是独立治疗的。神经性疼痛症状清单（NPSI）允许参与者提供有关其疤痕症状的广泛答案。瘢痕柔韧性和炎症的临床测试得分与参与者报告的瘢痕疼痛无关。与未受影响的皮肤相比，疤痕对针刺和寒冷的测试更敏感。我们了解到：有新的手疤痕的人参与研究并独立启动疤痕治疗。手术后手部疤痕的临床试验耐受性良好。NPSI有助于探索疤痕疼痛症状，并可能帮助我们了解持续性疤痕疼痛。针刺和寒冷的临床测试可能是未来疤痕研究的有用客观疼痛测试。
