Background:This study aimed to investigate the difference between ultrasonographic findings of normal skin and those of re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and to evaluate the relationship between the...Background:This study aimed to investigate the difference between ultrasonographic findings of normal skin and those of re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and to evaluate the relationship between these findings and clinical outcomes. Methods:This study retrospectively analysed the ultrasound images of re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and contralateral normal skin from January 2016 to December 2016. A total of 155 lesions from 148 patients were analysed with ultrasound images, and healing time was documented. The scar status of each lesion was evaluated through medical records and photographs. We analysed the difference in ultrasonographic findings between normal skin and re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and statistically analysed the relationship between healing time, scar status and ultrasonographic findings. Results: The re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns was significantly thicker than the contralateral normal skin, and the echogenicity was significantly lower. The ultrasound images of the re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns showed the characteristic findings of low-echogenic bands (LEB), and the proportion of LEB thickness is strongly correlated with healing time. In the multivariate analysis of scar status, only the proportion of LEB thickness was statistical y significant. Conclusion:In this study, we found that there were ultrasonographic differences between re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and normal skin and that an LEB of varying thickness was formed after re-epithelialization. The thickness of the LEB in re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns increased with healing time and was related to scar status.展开更多
文摘Background:This study aimed to investigate the difference between ultrasonographic findings of normal skin and those of re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and to evaluate the relationship between these findings and clinical outcomes. Methods:This study retrospectively analysed the ultrasound images of re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and contralateral normal skin from January 2016 to December 2016. A total of 155 lesions from 148 patients were analysed with ultrasound images, and healing time was documented. The scar status of each lesion was evaluated through medical records and photographs. We analysed the difference in ultrasonographic findings between normal skin and re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and statistically analysed the relationship between healing time, scar status and ultrasonographic findings. Results: The re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns was significantly thicker than the contralateral normal skin, and the echogenicity was significantly lower. The ultrasound images of the re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns showed the characteristic findings of low-echogenic bands (LEB), and the proportion of LEB thickness is strongly correlated with healing time. In the multivariate analysis of scar status, only the proportion of LEB thickness was statistical y significant. Conclusion:In this study, we found that there were ultrasonographic differences between re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns and normal skin and that an LEB of varying thickness was formed after re-epithelialization. The thickness of the LEB in re-epithelialized skin after partial-thickness burns increased with healing time and was related to scar status.
