Subjective scar assessment scales in orthopaedic surgery and determinants of patient satisfaction: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Scar assessment tools can be utilized during the post-operative period to monitor scar progress. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current subjective scar assessment scales utilized in orthopaedic surgery. The secondary aim was to identify determinants of patients' satisfaction with their scars and evaluate current measurement scales. METHODS: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist was followed. Electronic databases, currently registered studies, conference proceedings and the reference lists of included studies were searched. There were no constraints based on language or publication status. A narrative synthesis provided a description and evaluation of scales utilized in orthopaedic surgery. Determinants of patient satisfaction were identified along with the scales used to measure satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 6059 records were screened in the initial search. Twenty-six articles satisfied the inclusion criteria, assessing 7130 patients. In the literature, six validated subjective scar scales were identified, including the Vancouver scar scale, patient and observer scar assessment scale, Manchester scar scale, Stony Brook scar evaluation scale, visual analogue scale, and Hollander wound evaluation scale. Studies utilizing these scales to evaluate scars following orthopaedic procedures did so successfully. These were total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, and limb reconstruction. The scales demonstrated satisfactory validity. Functional outcomes such as restoration of movement ranked among patients' highest concerns. Scar cosmesis was found to be amongst patients' lowest priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective scar assessment scales identified in the literature were not designed specifically for orthopaedic surgery. However, these were able to appropriately assess scars in the studies identified in this review. Current evidence suggests the effect of scar cosmesis on patient satisfaction with orthopaedic procedures is limited.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".