Research Article| Volume 60, ISSUE 1, P87-94, January 2007

Use of a non-contact 3D digitiser to measure the volume of keloid scars: a useful tool for scar assessment


      Keloid scars often fail to respond to treatment, so research into new therapeutic regimes is important. However, research is limited by a scarcity of reliable, objective scar assessment tools. The volume of a keloid scar should decrease with successful treatment. This study demonstrates the use of a non-contact 3D digitiser to measure digitally the volume of a keloid scar.
      The scanner was used to scan 62 keloid scars and one fine-line normal scar. The scan took approximately 9 s to complete. The volume was measured using 3D reverse modelling software. A previously validated scar assessment scale was used to score the scars according to their physical parameters.
      A significant correlation was found between volume and the scar score (Pearson's r=0.627, p<0.001). Linear regression was also statistically significant (p<0.001, R2=0.44). Therefore it was possible to predict the scar score from the measured volume.
      This technique could allow monitoring of a patient on treatment, or comparison of treatments in a research setting. It overcomes previous problems with the measurement of scar volume as it is quantitatively objective and well-tolerated.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Beausang E.
        • Floyd H.
        • Dunn K.W.
        • et al.
        A new quantitative scale for clinical scar assessment.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 102: 1954
        • Bayat A.
        • McGrouther D.A.
        Clinical management of skin scarring.
        Skinmed. 2005; 4: 165-173
        • Niessen F.B.
        • Spauwen P.H.M.
        • Schalkwijk J.
        • et al.
        On the nature of hypertrophic scars and keloids: a review.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999; 104: 1435
        • Bayat A.
        • McGrouther D.A.
        • Ferguson M.W.J.
        Clinical review: skin scarring.
        BMJ. 2003; 326: 88
        • Mustoe T.A.
        • Cooter R.D.
        • Gold M.H.
        • et al.
        International clinical recommendations on scar management.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 110: 560
        • Van Zuijlen P.M.
        • Angeles A.P.
        • Kreis R.W.
        • et al.
        Scar assessment tools: implications for current research.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 109: 1108
        • Mustoe T.A.
        Discussion: the patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 113: 1966
        • Sullivan T.
        • Smith J.
        • Kermode J.
        • et al.
        Rating the burn scar.
        J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990; 11: 256
        • Draajers L.J.
        • Tempelman F.R.H.
        • Botman Y.A.M.
        • et al.
        The patient and observer scar scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 113: 1960
        • Ahn S.T.
        • Monafo W.W.
        • Mustoe T.A.
        Topical silicone gel for the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scar.
        Arch Surg. 1991; 126: 499
        • Nedelec B.
        • Shankowsky H.A.
        • Tredget E.E.
        Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver scar scale and scar volume.
        J Burn Care Rehabil. 2000; 21: 205