Comparison between high-frequency ultrasonography and histological assessment reveals weak correlation for measurements of scar tissue thickness

- Evaluating high frequency ultrasonography versus histology to measure cutaneous thickness of scars.
- Poor correlation between measurements.
- Different type of ultrasonography should be used to measure these outcomes.

ObjectiveCurrent methods for evaluating scar tissue volume following burns have shortcomings. The Vancouver Burn Scar scale is subjective, leading to a high variability in assessment. Although histological assessment via punch biopsy can discriminate between the different layers of skin, such an approach is invasive, inefficient, and detrimental to patient experience and wound healing. This study investigates the accuracy of high-frequency ultrasonography, a non-invasive alternative to histology, for measuring dermal and epidermal thickness in scar tissue.MethodsScar thicknesses of 10 patients following burns were assessed using a 2-D high-frequency ultrasound probe. The scars were then biopsied using a circular 4 mm punch biopsy for histological assessment. Dermal, epidermal, and total thickness of the scar tissue was measured using ultrasound and histology, and correlations between the two measurements were calculated.ResultsThere was not a strong correlation between ultrasound measurement and histological analysis for epidermal, dermal, and total thickness (Spearman's rank correlation of −0.1223, −0.6242, and −0.6242) of scar tissue.ConclusionsMeasurements of scar thickness using high-frequency ultrasonography did not recapitulate the in vivo dermal, epidermal and total thickness. Based on these findings, strategies for further optimization of 2-D ultrasonography is discussed before clinical and research use.