Burn injury characteristics, referral pattern, treatment (costs), and outcome in burn patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized Burn Centre (BURN-Pro).

PURPOSE: Data on the epidemiology, treatment, and outcome of burn patients treated at non-burn centre hospitals are not available. The primary aim was to compare the burn characteristics of patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized burn centre. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, cohort study enrolled patients with burns admitted to a hospital without a burn centre and patients with < 10% total body surface area (TBSA) burned admitted to the burn centre. Primary outcome measure was the burn-related injury characteristics. Secondary outcome measures were adherence to the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria, treatment (costs), quality of life, and scar quality. RESULTS: During the 2-year study period, 48 patients were admitted to a non-burn centre and 148 patients to the burn centre. In the non-burn centre group, age [44 (P25-P75 26-61) versus 30 (P25-P75 8-52) years; P = 0.007] and Injury Severity Score [2 (P25-P75 1-4) versus 1 (P25-P75 1-1); P < 0.001] were higher. In the burn centre group, the TBSA burned was significantly higher [4% (P25-P75 2-6) versus 2% (P25-P75 1-4); P = 0.001], and more surgical procedures were performed (in 54 versus 7 patients; P = 0.004). At 12 months, > 85% of the non-burn centre group and > 75% of the burn centre group reported no problems in quality of life. Scar quality score was < 1.5 in both groups, with significantly poorer scores in the burn centre group (P ≤ 0.007). CONCLUSION: Both groups differed in patient, burn, and treatment characteristics. At 12 months, quality of life and scar quality were good in both groups. Significantly poorer scar quality scores were found in the burn centre group. This might be related to their larger burns and more frequent surgery. The organization of burn care in the Netherlands seems to work adequately. Patients are treated locally when possible and are transferred when necessary.

Epidemiology of burn patients admitted in the Netherlands: a nationwide registry study investigating incidence rates and hospital admission from 2014 to 2018.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to gain insight into the epidemiology of burn patients admitted to a hospital without a burn center or referred to a burn center. METHODS: This retrospective, nationwide, cohort study included patients with burns or inhalation trauma, admitted between 2014 and 2018, from a national trauma registry. The primary outcome measure was admission to a hospital with or without a burn center. Secondary outcome measures were patient and injury characteristics, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and length of stay, and hospital length of stay (HLOS). RESULTS: Of the 5524 included patients, 2787 (50.4%) were treated at a non-burn center, 1745 (31.6%) were subsequently transferred to a burn center, and 992 (18.0%) were primarily presented and treated at a burn center. The annual number of patients decreased from 1199 to 1055 (- 12.4%). At all admission locations, a clear incidence peak was observed in children ≤ 4 years and in patients of ≥ 80 years. The number of ICU admissions for the entire population increased from 201 to 233 (33.0%). The mean HLOS for the entire population was 8 (SD 14) days per patient. This number remained stable over the years in all groups. CONCLUSION: Half of all burn patients were admitted in a non-burn center and the other half in a burn center. The number and incidence rate of patients admitted with burns or inhalation trauma decreased over time. An increased incidence rate was found in children and elderly. The number of patients admitted to the ICU increased, whereas mean hospital length of stay remained stable.

Adherence to the emergency management of severe burns referral criteria in burn patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized burn center.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim was to determine to what extent referral and admission of burn patients to a hospital with or without a burn center was in line with the EMSB referral criteria. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Burn patients admitted from 2014 to 2018 to a hospital in the Southwest Netherland trauma region and Network Emergency Care Brabant were included in this study. Outcome measures were the adherence to the EMSB referral criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1790 patients were included, of whom 951 patients were primarily presented to a non-burn center. Of these patients, 666 (70.0%) were managed according to the referral criteria; 263 (27.7%) were appropriately not referred, 403 (42.4%) were appropriately referred. Twenty (2.1%) were overtransferred, and 265 (27.9%) undertransferred. In 1213 patients treated at a burn center 1119 (92.3%) met the referral criteria. Adherence was lowest for electrical (N = 4; 14.3%) and chemical burns (N = 16; 42.1%), and was highest in 'children ≥5% total body surface area (TBSA) burned' (N = 109; 83.2%). CONCLUSION: The overall adherence to the referral criteria of patients presented to a non-burn center was fairly high. However, approximately 25% was not transferred to a burn center while meeting the criteria. Most improvement for individual criteria can be achieved in patients with electrical and chemical burns.

Injuries, treatment, and impairment caused by different types of fireworks; results of a 10 year multicenter retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the number of patients reported to a hospital with injuries from consumer fireworks in the months December-January in the past 10 years, and to describe the association between the type of fireworks, injury pattern, treatment, and permanent impairment. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, observational case series. Patients were selected from two hospitals in the Southwest Netherlands: a level 1 trauma center and a specialized burn center. All patients with any fireworks-related injuries treated between December 1 and January 31, during 2007 (December) to 2017 (January), were eligible for participation. The primary outcome was the number of patients with any type of injury caused by fireworks. The secondary outcome measures were patient and injury characteristics, treatment details, and whole person impairment (WPI). The percentage WPI expresses a patient's degree of permanent impairments as a result of fireworks-related injuries. RESULTS: Of the 297 eligible patients, 272 patients were included. From 2007 to 2017, between 21 and 40 patients were treated, and no clear increase or decrease was observed in the number of patients and in the number of patients per type of fireworks. Explosive fireworks mainly caused upper extremity (N = 65; 68%) injuries, while rockets (N = 24; 41%) and aerials (N = 7; 41%) mainly affected the head/neck. Decorative fireworks predominantly resulted in burns (N = 82; 68%), and explosive fireworks in soft tissue lacerations (N = 24; 25%), fractures (N = 16; 17%), and amputations (N = 14; 15%). Patients injured by explosive and homemade fireworks were most often admitted to a hospital (respectively N = 24; 36% and N = 12; 80%), and resulted in the highest proportion undergoing surgical procedures (respectively N = 22; 33% and N = 7; 47%). WPI found in this study was between 0 to 95%, with a median of 0%. In 34 (14%) patients, the injuries resulted in a WPI of ≥1%, mostly as a result of explosive fireworks (N = 18; 53%). CONCLUSION: This study found no increase or decrease in the number of patients treated in two specialized hospitals. Explosive and homemade fireworks could be considered as most dangerous, as they result into the most hospital admissions, surgical procedures, and into the most injuries with permanent impairment as a result.

Epidemiology, treatment, costs, and long-term outcomes of patients with fireworks-related injuries (ROCKET); a multicenter prospective observational case series.

OBJECTIVE: People in the Netherlands are legally allowed to celebrate New Year's Eve with consumer fireworks. The aim of this study was to provide detailed information about the patient and injury characteristics, medical and societal costs, and clinical and functional outcome in patients with injuries resulting from this tradition. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, observational case series performed in the Southwest Netherlands trauma region, which reflects 15% of the country and includes a level I trauma center, a specialized burn center, a specialized eye hospital, and 13 general hospitals. All patients with any injury caused by consumer fireworks, treated at a Dutch hospital between December 1, 2017 and January 31, 2018, were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were unknown contact information or insufficient understanding of Dutch or English language. The primary outcome measure was injury characteristics. Secondary outcome measures included treatment, direct medical and indirect societal costs, and clinical and functional outcome until one year after trauma. RESULTS: 54 out of 63 eligible patients agreed to participate in this study. The majority were males (N = 50; 93%), 50% were children below 16 years of age, and 46% were bystanders. Injuries were mainly located to the upper extremity or eyes, and were mostly burns (N = 38; 48%) of partial thickness (N = 32; 84%). Fifteen (28%) patients were admitted and 11 (20%) patients needed surgical treatment. The mean total costs per patient were €6,320 (95% CI €3,400 to €9,245). The most important cost category was hospital admission. Only few patients reported complaints in patient-reported quality of life and functional outcome after 12 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study found that young males are most vulnerable for fireworks injuries and that most injuries consist of burns, located to the arm and hand, and eye injuries. On the long-term only few patients experienced reduced quality of life and functional limitations.

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Delirium in Elderly Patients With Severe Burns: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Little is known about delirium in elderly burn center patients. The aim of this study is to provide information on the prevalence of delirium and risk factors contributing to the onset of delirium. All patients aged 70 years or older admitted with burn injuries to the Burn Center, Maasstad Hospital, in 2011 to 2017 were eligible for inclusion. We retrospectively collected data regarding the presence of delirium, potential risk factors contributing to the onset of delirium and outcome after delirium. We included elderly 90 patients in this study. The prevalence of delirium in our population was 13% (N = 12). Risk factors for delirium were advanced age, increased American Society for Anesthesiologists score, physical impairment and the use of anticholinergic drugs during admission. Patients with delirium had a poorer outcome, with prolonged hospital stay and increased mortality 6 and 12 months after discharge. Delirium is diagnosed in 13% of the elderly patients admitted to our burn center. Risk factors for delirium found in this study are advanced age, poor physical health status, physical impairment, and the use of anticholinergic drugs. Delirium is related to poor outcomes, including prolonged hospital stay and mortality after discharge.

[Firework injuries in the south-western region of the Netherlands around the turn of the year 2017-2018]. / Vuurwerkletsel in Zuidwest-Nederland.

OBJECTIVE: To report the number of patients with firework-related injuries treated in December 2017 and January 2018 in a hospital in the south-west Netherlands trauma region, and to provide details about the types of firework used and the specific injuries. DESIGN: A prospective multicentre cohort study (NTR6793). METHODS: Patients of all ages with firework-related injuries were eligible for inclusion. The injury had to have been sustained between 1 December 2017 and 31 January 2018, and treated at a hospital in the south-west Netherlands trauma region (approximately 2.5 million inhabitants). Data were extracted from patients' medical files and additional information was obtained from patient interviews. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were included. The majority were male (93%) and the median age was 15 years. Twenty-five (46%) patients were bystanders and 12 (22%) were injured by illegal fireworks. Fifty patients were injured by bangers (n=22) or decorative fireworks (n=28). The patients had a total of 79 injuries, of which 29 (37%) were localised to the upper extremity and 19 (24%) to the eyes. Most upper extremity injuries were burns (69%), primarily partial thickness. Of the eye injuries, 14 were caused by blunt trauma, seven by chemical trauma, and one by penetrating trauma. Three patients sustained indirect firework-related injuries. CONCLUSION: Between 1 December 2017 and 31 January 2018 in the south-west Netherlands trauma region mainly teenage males and bystanders sustained firework-related injuries. Most injuries were upper extremity burns and eye injuries, mainly due to legal fireworks and bangers or decorative fireworks. The extent of the sample indicates that the study findings can be extrapolated to the rest of the Netherlands.

Epidemiology of injuries, treatment (costs) and outcome in burn patients admitted to a hospital with or without dedicated burn centre (Burn-Pro): protocol for a multicentre prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria have been implemented for optimal triaging of burn patients. Admission to a burn centre is indicated for patients with severe burns or with specific characteristics like older age or comorbidities. Patients not meeting these criteria can also be treated in a hospital without burn centre. Limited information is available about the organisation of care and referral of these patients. The aims of this study are to determine the burn injury characteristics, treatment (costs), quality of life and scar quality of burn patients admitted to a hospital without dedicated burn centre. These data will subsequently be compared with data from patients with<10% total bodysurface area (TBSA) burned who are admitted (or secondarily referred) to a burn centre. If admissions were in agreement with the EMSB, referral criteria will also be determined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre, prospective, observational study (cohort study), the following two groups of patients will be followed: 1) all patients (no age limit) admitted with burn-related injuries to a hospital without a dedicated burn centre in the Southwest Netherlands or Brabant Trauma Region and 2) all patients (no age limit) with<10% TBSA burned who are primarily admitted (or secondarily referred) to the burn centre of Maasstad Hospital. Data on the burn injury characteristics (primary outcome), EMSB compliance, treatment, treatment costs and outcome will be collected from the patients' medical files. At 3 weeks and at 3, 6 and 12 months after trauma, patients will be asked to complete the quality of life questionnaire (EuroQoL-5D), and the patient-reported part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). At those time visits, the coordinating investigator or research assistant will complete the observer-reported part of the POSAS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been exempted by the medical research ethics committee Erasmus MC (Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Each participant will provide written consent to participate and remain encoded during the study. The results of the study are planned to be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6565.

Twenty-Year Follow-up Study Comparing Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures in High-Level Athletes.

BACKGROUND: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture has major consequences at midterm follow-up, with an increasing chance of developing an old knee in a young patient. The long-term (≥20 years) effects of the operative and nonoperative treatment of ACL ruptures are still unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the long-term treatment outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL ruptures in high-level athletes. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Fifty patients with an ACL rupture were eligible for participation, and they were treated either nonoperatively (n = 25) in 1992, consisting of structured rehabilitation and lifestyle adjustments, or operatively (n = 25) between 1994 and 1996 with an arthroscopic transtibial bone-patellar tendon-bone technique. The patients in the nonoperative group were drawn from those who responded well to 3 months of nonoperative treatment, whereas the patients in the operative group were drawn from those who had persistent instability after 3 months of nonoperative treatment. Both groups were pair-matched and assessed at 10- and 20-year follow-up regarding radiological knee osteoarthritis, functional outcomes (Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Tegner, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), meniscal status, and knee stability (KT-1000 arthrometer, pivot-shift test, Lachman test, 1-legged hop test). RESULTS: All 50 patients (100%) were included in the current study for follow-up. After 20 years, we found knee osteoarthritis in 80% of the operative group compared with 68% of the nonoperative group ( P = .508). There was no difference between groups regarding functional outcomes and meniscectomy performed. The median IKDC subjective score was 81.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 59.8-89.1) for the operative group and 78.2 (IQR, 61.5-92.0) for the nonoperative group ( P = .679). Regarding the IKDC objective score, 21 patients (84%) in the operative group had a normal or near normal score (A and B) compared with 5 patients (20%) in the nonoperative group ( P < .001). The pivot-shift test finding was negative in 17 patients (68%) versus 3 patients (13%) for the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively ( P < .001), and the Lachman test finding was negative in 12 patients (48%) versus 1 patient (4%), respectively ( P = .002). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective pair-matched follow-up study, we found that after 20-year follow-up, there was no difference in knee osteoarthritis between operative versus nonoperative treatment when treatment was allocated on the basis of a patient's response to 3 months of nonoperative treatment. Although knee stability was better in the operative group, it did not result in better subjective and objective functional outcomes.

Can we predict the clinical outcome of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy? A systematic review.

NHS-PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 42016048592 OBJECTIVE: In order to make a more evidence-based selection of patients who would benefit the most from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), knowledge of prognostic factors is essential. We conducted a systematic review of predictors for the clinical outcome following APM. DESIGN: Systematic review DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar INCLUSION CRITERIA: Report an association between factor(s) and clinical outcome; validated questionnaire; follow-up >1 year. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: <20 subjects; anterior cruciate ligament-deficient patients; discoid menisci; meniscus repair, transplantation or implants; total or open meniscectomy. METHODS: One reviewer extracted the data, two reviewers assessed the risk of bias and performed a best-evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Finally, 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. Moderate evidence was found, that the presence of radiological knee osteoarthritis at baseline and longer duration of symptoms (>1 year) are associated with worse clinical outcome following APM. In addition, resecting >50% of meniscal tissue and leaving a non-intact meniscal rim after meniscectomy are intra-articular predictive factors for worse clinical outcome. Moderate evidence was found that sex, onset of symptoms (acute or chronic), tear type or preoperative sport level are not predictors for clinical outcome. Conflicting evidence was found for the prognostic value of age, perioperative chondral damage, body mass index and leg alignment. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Long duration of symptoms (>1 year), radiological knee osteoarthritis and resecting >50% of meniscus are associated with a worse clinical outcome following APM. These prognostic factors should be considered in clinical decision making for patients with meniscal tears.