Burns open : an international open access journal for burn injuries最新文献

Introduction

Method

Results

Conclusion

Here we describe the use of a synthetic polyurethane matrix in the setting of burns and other complex wounds in the largest United States case series to date. A retrospective review was conducted at a verified, regional burn center. All patients greater than 18 years of age who received this matrix between January 2019 and July 2023 were included. A total of 182 patients with 250 wounds were included in this study. Thirty-seven percent were smokers, 23.6 % had diabetes and 5.5 % had peripheral vascular disease. The majority were acute burn wounds (60 %), followed by trauma (24.4 %), chronic wounds (5.6 %), infection (4 %) and donor sites (2 %). Exposed structures included fat (54 %), muscle (30 %), bone (16 %) and tendon (14.4 %). Microbial colonization was present in 143 (57.2 %) of cases: 98 (39.2 %) pre-application and 89 (35.6 %) post application. The incidence of new microbial colonisation post-application was 25.6 %. Infection was present in 117 (46.8 %) cases, 49 (19.6 %) pre-matrix application, 44 (17.6 %) post-matrix application and 24 (9.6 %) pre and post application. Eighteen patients (10 %) died. Median length of stay was 27 days. Median time to matrix implantation was 10 days. Median time from matrix placement to skin grafting was 35 days. Where documented, there were 162 wounds (83.5 %) with > 95 % matrix survival and 136 wounds (82.4 %) with > 95 % skin graft survival even in the setting of adverse factors such as infection, diabetes, or nicotine use. This study demonstrates the robustness of this skin substitute to achieve successful reconstruction even in the setting of adverse patient or wound characteristics.

Scarring is the primary complication of anyone suffering a burn injury. Despite years of research, there have been few advances in the prevention and treatment of any scar. Recent studies have identified many factors that contribute to scar formation, but despite understanding mechanisms, clinicians are unable to stop the inevitable processes of scarring. The goal of this review is to describe current methods to reduce scarring in burns. At the same time, key questions that should direct future research will be presented. Like many maladies, optimal early care should reduce these complications.

Background

Severe burn injuries significantly challenge acute medical care, particularly in resource-limited environments. Current predictive scoring systems, often impractical and adult-focused, neglect crucial aspects like mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Methods

This study analyzed 2,618 severe burn patients, developing new predictive models for survival, mechanical ventilation, and LOS, based on promptly accessible factors applicable in any setting.

Results

We observed significant seasonality and clear age- and gender-specific patterns, highlighting the necessity for targeted interventions. We developed and publicly released new predictive models for mortality, mechanical ventilation, and LOS for both adult and pediatric populations.

Discussion

Targeting deficiencies in existing scoring systems, this study potentially advances acute burn management, with a particular focus on resource-limited settings. It provides crucial insights into the epidemiology, etiology, and prognostic factors of severe burn injuries, encapsulated in 10 actionable points. We also present an innovative freely accessible online assessment tool: https://burn-scores.com.

Conclusion

By bridging gaps in current scoring methodologies and improving acute phase management, our research offers insights to improve clinical outcomes for severe burn patients globally. The integration of tailored predictive models and technology-driven solutions, especially relevant in resource-constrained settings, represents a major stride in enhancing the quality of burn care.

Background

Resource limitations in settings such as burn mass casualty incidents (MCIs) present challenges to the judicious fluid resuscitation required for major burns. Previous recommendations for burns care in MCIs have suggested certain adaptations from routine care, such as delaying intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation until arrival at facility; using a fluid calculation formula that is independent of percentage of total body surface area (%TBSA) burned; or using fluid calculation formula based on time of arrival to first receiving facility rather than from time of injury, thus omitting ‘catch-up’ fluid.

Objectives

To synthesize and assess certainty of evidence from resource-limited settings on the three adaptations to fluid resuscitation for patients with major burns in MCIs.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched on 8 September 2023 with an update search on 8 July 2024. Primary quantitative studies in resource-limited settings meeting eligibility criteria as assessed by two reviewers were included. Where available, outcome effects for these adaptations compared to routine burns care were calculated. Evidence certainty was determined by GRADE.

Results

Two eligible studies were identified from 544 search results. One study with 48 participants provided very uncertain evidence that delayed IV fluid resuscitation may increase acute kidney injury compared to prehospital resuscitation (OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.58–10.62). The other study with a cohort of 10 children provided very uncertain evidence that calculating fluid requirements based on time of arrival to first receiving facility, i.e. omitting ‘catch-up’ fluids, may maintain adequate urine output and be associated with no complications of fluid over- or under-resuscitation. There were no studies on use of a simplified %TBSA-independent fluid calculation formula.

Conclusions

There is very limited and uncertain evidence to inform on delayed IV fluid resuscitation, simplified %TBSA-independent formula, and omission of ‘catch up’ fluids for burns care in MCIs. Contextual factors, local values, preferences and feasibility also need to be considered.

Background

Timely and safe intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation for major burns may be difficult or impossible during mass casualty burn incidents. Oral/enteral fluid resuscitation may be an alternative.

Objectives

To synthesize and assess certainty of evidence on oral/enteral fluid resuscitation as compared to IV or no fluid resuscitation for major burns.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched on 8 September 2023. Primary quantitative studies meeting criteria as assessed by two reviewers were included. Meta-analyses for outcome effects of oral/enteral versus IV and of oral/enteral versus no fluid resuscitation were conducted. Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE.

Results

Seven human and eight animal studies were included. Three human RCTs totalling 100 participants contributed to estimates. Compared to IV fluid resuscitation, oral/enteral fluid resuscitation is associated with a statistically insignificant increased risk of mortality (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.33–5.36) but the evidence is very uncertain, and no difference in urine output (SMD −0.17, 95% CI −0.65–0.31) with moderate certainty of evidence. Eight controlled animal studies totalling 212 participants contributed to estimates. From these animal studies, enteral fluid resuscitation may increase mortality (OR 36.00, 95% CI 2.72–476.28), worsen creatinine levels (MD 22 mmol/L, 95% CI 15.8–28.2), and increase urine output (MD 1 ml/kg/h, 95% CI 0.55–1.45) compared to IV, but all with very low certainty of evidence. Again, from animal studies, all the evidence is very uncertain, but compared to no fluid resuscitation, enteral resuscitation is associated with a statistically insignificant reduction in mortality (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08–1.09), improved creatinine levels (SMD −3.48, 95% CI −4.69 to −2.28), and increased urine output (MD 0.55 ml/kg/h, 95% CI 0.38–0.72).

Conclusions

Current evidence comparing oral/enteral and IV fluid resuscitation for major burns is limited and uncertain. However, where IV fluid resuscitation is unavailable or delayed, oral fluid resuscitation could be considered.