EFFECTS OF PRESSURE GARMENTS WITH AND WITHOUT LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY ON HYPERTROPHIC HAND SCAR IN CHILDREN WITH BURN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Burn injuries are a common consequence of acute trauma caused by heat, chemicals, friction, radiation, or electricity, leading to damage of the skin and underlying tissues. Pediatric populations are particularly at risk due to their developmental behaviors, limited risk awareness, and slower response to environmental hazards. Among the complications following burns, hypertrophic scarring is a frequent outcome that impacts both cosmetic appearance and functional mobility, particularly in the hands. Management of these scars remains a clinical challenge requiring effective non-invasive strategies. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of pressure garment therapy combined with low-level laser therapy (LLT) versus pressure garment therapy alone in the treatment of hypertrophic hand scars among children with burn injuries. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted using a convenient sampling method. Twenty-eight pediatric patients with post-burn hypertrophic hand scars were initially enrolled, with two dropping out, resulting in 26 participants completing the study. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups (n=13 each). Group A received LLT in combination with pressure garments, while Group B received pressure garments alone. Both groups underwent treatment for six weeks, with sessions lasting 20–25 minutes each. Scar outcomes were assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (PSOAS) before and after the intervention. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25, applying paired and independent t-tests with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: Post-treatment VSS scores decreased significantly in both groups: from 4.154 ± 0.898 to 3.615 ± 0.869 in Group B (p = 0.003) and from 4.308 ± 0.751 to 2.692 ± 0.630 in Group A (p = 0.000). Similarly, PSOAS scores showed significant reductions: from 4.153 ± 0.898 to 3.538 ± 0.967 in Group B (p = 0.002) and from 4.307 ± 0.751 to 2.692 ± 0.630 in Group A (p = 0.000). Between-group comparison also favored the experimental group with LLT for both scales. Conclusion: Pressure garment therapy significantly reduced hypertrophic scars in children with hand burns, and its combination with low-level laser therapy resulted in superior clinical outcomes. The findings support the use of multimodal conservative interventions to optimize scar management in pediatric burn rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".