Sir: We read the article by Perry and colleagues1 with great interest and agree that objective assessment of skin scars is crucial for planning their treatment. The article is a review aimed “to explore the current range of noninvasive objective assessment tools available for cutaneous skin scarring” described in the literature since 1937. The authors classify the reviewed tools according to four physical characteristics of skin scar (i.e., color, surface area, height/depth, and pliability) and state that the skin's “elasticity, extensibility, firmness, and tensile strength constitute the collective definition of pliability.” They add that “scars are required to glide and stretch with normal skin to facilitate normal physiologic function” (Fig. 1).Fig. 1.: The Adheremeter. Scar adherence (marked with a black fine-line pen) in original position O at rest (above) and at maximal lateral excursion L1(below) when pulled with maximal force within a comfort range for the patient. The red arrow indicates the pulling direction. In this example, maximal lateral excursion of the adherence (from O to L1) is 3 mm.In reality, gliding and stretching are two different biomechanical properties, and we agree with those who consider and measure separately the adherent condition (capacity to glide) and the scar firmness and inflexibility (capacity to stretch).2 For instance, pathologic scar might be adherent in one point and at the same time globally supple. This occurs, for example, in surgical linear wounds where the pathologic scarring may not affect the entire incision but occurs mainly at a depth. Unfortunately, scar pliability and adherence are sometimes analyzed with the same items3; in fact, the tools considered in the article by Perry et al. are aimed to assess scar stretching but not specifically to measure scar gliding. Recently, we validated in postsurgical scars a cheap and easy-to-use device to objectively measure scar gliding, dubbed the Adheremeter (Fig. 1).4 This device measures adherence of postsurgical scar, defined as the restriction of scar mobility with respect to underlying tissue at the worst adherent point when pulled in four orthogonal directions. To our knowledge, no other instruments have been validated to assess degree of scar adherence, and only one scale has been developed for adherent scars (the Skin Glide Grade scale, which subjectively grades the amount of scar restriction).5 Because there is not currently a consensus on this topic, we think it would be relevant for the readers if Perry and colleagues could express their expert opinion on the following points: (1) the relationship between scar capacity to glide (adherence) and to stretch (pliability), and (2) the best tools with which to assess scar adherence of different type and origin in a clinical setting. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication. Giorgio Ferriero, M.D. Stefano Vercelli, P.T., M.Sc. Unit of Occupational Rehabilitation and Ergonomics S. Maugeri Foundation Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Scientific Institute of Veruno Veruno, Italy Ludovit Salgovic, M.D., C.Sc. Univerzita sv Cyrila a Metoda Trnava, Slovak Republic Francesco Sartorio, P.T. Franco Franchignoni, M.D. Unit of Occupational Rehabilitation and Ergonomics S. Maugeri Foundation Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Scientific Institute of Veruno Veruno, Italy