An international RAND/UCLA expert panel to determine the optimal diagnosis and management of burn inhalation injury.

BACKGROUND: Burn inhalation injury (BII) is a major cause of burn-related mortality and morbidity. Despite published practice guidelines, no consensus exists for the best strategies regarding diagnosis and management of BII. A modified DELPHI study using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method (RAM) systematically analysed the opinions of an expert panel. Expert opinion was combined with available evidence to determine what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate judgement in the diagnosis and management of BII. METHODS: A 15-person multidisciplinary panel comprised anaesthetists, intensivists and plastic surgeons involved in the clinical management of major burn patients adopted a modified Delphi approach using the RAM method. They rated the appropriateness of statements describing diagnostic and management options for BII on a Likert scale. A modified final survey comprising 140 statements was completed, subdivided into history and physical examination (20), investigations (39), airway management (5), systemic toxicity (23), invasive mechanical ventilation (29) and pharmacotherapy (24). Median appropriateness ratings and the disagreement index (DI) were calculated to classify statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. RESULTS: Of 140 statements, 74 were rated as appropriate, 40 as uncertain and 26 as inappropriate. Initial intubation with ≥ 8.0 mm endotracheal tubes, lung protective ventilatory strategies, initial bronchoscopic lavage, serial bronchoscopic lavage for severe BII, nebulised heparin and salbutamol administration for moderate-severe BII and N-acetylcysteine for moderate BII were rated appropriate. Non-protective ventilatory strategies, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, high-frequency percussive ventilation, prophylactic systemic antibiotics and corticosteroids were rated inappropriate. Experts disagreed (DI ≥ 1) on six statements, classified uncertain: the use of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy to guide fluid requirements (DI = 1.52), intubation with endotracheal tubes of internal diameter < 8.0 mm (DI = 1.19), use of airway pressure release ventilation modality (DI = 1.19) and nebulised 5000IU heparin, N-acetylcysteine and salbutamol for mild BII (DI = 1.52, 1.70, 1.36, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Burns experts mostly agreed on appropriate and inappropriate diagnostic and management criteria of BII as in published guidance. Uncertainty exists as to the optimal diagnosis and management of differing grades of severity of BII. Future research should investigate the accuracy of bronchoscopic grading of BII, the value of bronchial lavage in differing severity groups and the effectiveness of nebulised therapies in different severities of BII.

Elevated 18:0 lysophosphatidylcholine contributes to the development of pain in tissue injury.

ABSTRACT: Tissue injuries, including burns, are major causes of death and morbidity worldwide. These injuries result in the release of intracellular molecules and subsequent inflammatory reactions, changing the tissues' chemical milieu and leading to the development of persistent pain through activating pain-sensing primary sensory neurons. However, the majority of pain-inducing agents in injured tissues are unknown. Here, we report that, amongst other important metabolite changes, lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) including 18:0 LPC exhibit significant and consistent local burn injury-induced changes in concentration. 18:0 LPC induces immediate pain and the development of hypersensitivities to mechanical and heat stimuli through molecules including the transient receptor potential ion channel, vanilloid subfamily, member 1, and member 2 at least partly via increasing lateral pressure in the membrane. As levels of LPCs including 18:0 LPC increase in other tissue injuries, our data reveal a novel role for these lipids in injury-associated pain. These findings have high potential to improve patient care.

A Randomized Trial of Enteral Glutamine for Treatment of Burn Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is thought to have beneficial effects on the metabolic and stress response to severe injury. Clinical trials involving patients with burns and other critically ill patients have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits and risks of glutamine supplementation. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with deep second- or third-degree burns (affecting ≥10% to ≥20% of total body-surface area, depending on age) within 72 hours after hospital admission to receive 0.5 g per kilogram of body weight per day of enterally delivered glutamine or placebo. Trial agents were given every 4 hours through a feeding tube or three or four times a day by mouth until 7 days after the last skin grafting procedure, discharge from the acute care unit, or 3 months after admission, whichever came first. The primary outcome was the time to discharge alive from the hospital, with data censored at 90 days. We calculated subdistribution hazard ratios for discharge alive, which took into account death as a competing risk. RESULTS: A total of 1209 patients with severe burns (mean burn size, 33% of total body-surface area) underwent randomization, and 1200 were included in the analysis (596 patients in the glutamine group and 604 in the placebo group). The median time to discharge alive from the hospital was 40 days (interquartile range, 24 to 87) in the glutamine group and 38 days (interquartile range, 22 to 75) in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio for discharge alive, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Mortality at 6 months was 17.2% in the glutamine group and 16.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.41). No substantial between-group differences in serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe burns, supplemental glutamine did not reduce the time to discharge alive from the hospital. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; RE-ENERGIZE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00985205.).

Impact of inhalation injury on outcomes in critically ill burns patients: 12-year experience at a regional burns centre.

INTRODUCTION: Burns inhalation injury increases the attributable mortality of burns related trauma. However, diagnostic uncertainties around bronchoscopically graded severity, and its effect on outcomes, remain. This study evaluated the impact of different bronchoscopic burns inhalation injury grades on outcomes. METHODS: A single-centre cohort study of all patients admitted to the London Burns centre intensive care unit (BICU) over 12 years. Demographic data, burn and burns inhalation injury characteristics, and ICU-related parameters were collected retrospectively. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital and ICU lengths of stay. The impact of pneumonia was determined. Univariate and multivariable Cox's proportional hazards regression analyses informed factors predicting mortality. RESULTS: Burns inhalation injury was diagnosed in 84 of 231 (36%) critically ill burns patients; 20 mild (grade 1), 41 severe (grades 2/3) and 23 unclassified bronchoscopically. Median (IQR) total body surface area burned (TBSA) was 20% (10-40). Mortality was significantly higher in patients with burns inhalation injury vs those without burns inhalation injury (38/84 [45%] vs 35/147 [24%], p < 0.001). Patients with pneumonia had a higher mortality than those without (34/125 [27%] vs 8/71 [11%], p = 0.009). In multivariable analysis, severe burns inhalation injury significantly increased mortality (adjusted HR=2.14, 95%CI: 1.12-4.09, p = 0.022), compared with mild injury (adjusted HR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.18-1.86, p = 0.363). Facial burns (adjusted HR=3.13, 95%CI: 1.69-5.79, p < 0.001), higher TBSA (adjusted HR=1.05, 95%CI: 1.04-1.06, p < 0.001) and older age (adjusted HR=1.04, 95%CI: 1.02-1.07, p < 0.001) also independently predicted mortality, though pneumonia did not. CONCLUSIONS: Severe burns inhalation injury is a significant risk factor for mortality in critically ill burns patients. However, pneumonia did not increase mortality from burns inhalation injury. This work confirms prior implications of bronchoscopically graded burns inhalation injury. Further study is suggested, through registries, into the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of bronchoscopy in burns related lung injury.

RSTNCOVID Burns: A multi-centre service evaluation and stakeholder survey of the impact of COVID-19 on burns care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As the UK entered the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service published consensus guidance to the UK burns services advising changes to the acute management of burns to allow the continuation of safe care while protecting limited hospital resources. We aimed to describe the demographics of burns service users, changes to clinical pathways and experiences of the burns team during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. All burns services in the UK were invited to participate in a national collaborative, trainee-led study supported by the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network. The study consisted of (1) a service evaluation of patients receiving burns treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) a multidisciplinary team survey. Analyses were descriptive and narrative depending on data types. Collaborators from 18 sites contributed data from burns MDT surveys and 512 patients. Patient demographics were consistent with typical burns patterns in the UK. The delayed presentation occurred in 20% of cases, with 24 patients developing complications. MDT surveys indicated substantial adaptations and challenges as a result of the pandemic. Access to theatres and critical care were limited, yet a comprehensive acute burns service was maintained. Telemedicine was utilised heavily to reduce patient footfall. Adaptations in the provision of burns care, including greater outpatient care and telemedicine, have emerged out of necessity with reported success. The impact of reduced scar therapy and psychological interventions for burns patients during the pandemic requires longer-term follow-up. Lessons from the UK experience can be used to strategise for future pandemics.

Lactate dehydrogenase activity staining demonstrates time-dependent immune cell infiltration in human ex-vivo burn-injured skin.

Burn injuries constitute one of the most serious accidental injuries. Increased metabolic rate is a hallmark feature of burn injury. Visualising lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity has been previously used to identify metabolic activity differences, hence cell viability and burn depth in burn skin. LDH activity was visualised in injured and uninjured skin from 38 sub-acute burn patients. LDH activity aided the identification of spatially correlating immunocompetent cells in a sub-group of six patients. Desorption Electrospray Ionisation Mass Spectrometry Imaging (DESI MSI) was used to describe relative lactate and pyruvate abundance in burned and uninjured tissue. LDH activity was significantly increased in the middle and deep regions of burnt skin compared with superficial areas in burnt skin and uninjured tissue and positively correlated with post-burn time. Regions of increased LDH activity showed high pyruvate and low lactate abundance when examined with DESI-MSI. Areas of increased LDH activity exhibited cellular infiltration, including CD3 + and CD4 + T-lymphocytes and CD68 + macrophages. Our data demonstrate a steady increase in functional LDH activity in sub-acute burn wounds linked to cellular infiltration. The cell types associated are related to tissue restructuring and inflammation. This region in burn wounds is likely the focus of dysregulated inflammation and hypermetabolism.

Colonic perforation following major burns: Experience from a burns center and a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Major burns complicated by stress ulceration and perforation of the stomach or duodenum is a recognized clinical phenomenon. Colonic perforation in burns patients is not common, and the overall incidence, diagnosis, intervention undertaken and mortality is incompletely described in the literature. METHOD: We performed a systematic review of the literature on severe burns resulting in colonic perforation during the initial admission period. Relevant studies from January 1975 to June 2020 were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, total body surface area (TBSA) and anatomical region of burn, site of colonic perforation and management, nutrition, sepsis and microbiology, length of stay and overall outcome were extracted. We present a case series of five burns patients who had colonic perforations in our Specialist Burns Center. RESULTS: We identified 54 studies, of which nine (two case series and seven case reports) met the inclusion criteria. Colonic perforation following burns was most common in middle-aged male patients with a proportion of patients having a history of mental health issues. In most cases, the TBSA associated with a colonic perforation was ≥30% (11/16 patients, 69%). Perforations mainly affected the right side of the colon (12/16 patients, 75%), usually occurring after the second week of admission (13/16 patients, 81%). Right-sided colonic perforations were associated with an increased mortality rate compared to left-sided perforations (42% vs 25%). CONCLUSIONS: The current literature is mainly limited to case series and case reports and confirms that colonic perforations in burns patients are rare. Colonic perforations are related to the systemic effect of burn injuries including sepsis and gastrointestinal stasis. We have identified patients who are at higher risk of developing colonic perforations and have described the common findings in these patients. Through greater awareness early diagnosis and prompt intervention may be achieved to improve outcomes and reduce associated morbidity and mortality.

The impact and lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic on a UK Burns Centre.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted healthcare provision in the UK and burns services have had to adapt to ensure the continuity of a safe care. As we return to "normality" we reflect on lessons learnt from our response to this pandemic. A service evaluation was performed from patient notes between March 23rd and May 8th 2020 and an anonymous survey given to patients attending outpatient appointments. 258 patients were referred to our burns service and 148 patients completed the survey. Eleven burns were caused by treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Patients delayed seeking medical attention due to concern of catching COVID-19 (36% adults, 8% children). There was a delay in referral of 17 patients despite them fulfilling the referral criteria. Infection rates were higher following delayed presentation (21% vs 6%). The majority of burns were managed conservatively (237/258). Dressing changes were performed at home by 32% of patients. The outreach team treated 22 patients. During the pandemic telemedicine has improved the efficiency of outpatient burn care and outreach nurses have enabled treatment of vulnerable patients. More must be done to raise public awareness of preventable causes of burn injury and to reassure them to seek help when burns occur.

The initial validation of a novel outcome measure in severe burns- the Persistent Organ Dysfunction +Death: Results from a multicenter evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: A need exists to improve the efficiency of clinical trials in burn care. The objective of this study was to validate "Persistent Organ Dysfunction" plus death as endpoint in burn patients and to demonstrate its statistical efficiency. METHODS: This secondary outcome analysis of a dataset from a prospective international multicenter RCT (RE-ENERGIZE) included patients with burned total body surface area >20% and a 6-month follow-up. Persistent organ dysfunction was defined as persistence of organ dysfunction with life-supportiing technologies and ICU care. RESULTS: In the 539 included patients, the prevalence of 0p p+ pdeath was 40% at day 14 and of 27% at day 28. At both timepoints, survivors with POD (vs. survivors without POD) had a higher mortality rate, longer ICU- and hospital-stays, and a reduced quality of life. POD + death as an endpoint could result in reduced sample size requirements for clinical trials. Detecting a 25% relative risk reduction in 28-day mortality would require a sample size of 4492 patients, whereas 1236 patients would be required were 28-day POD + death used. CONCLUSIONS: POD + death represents a promising composite outcome measure that may reduce the sample size requirements of clinical trials in severe burns patients. Further validation in larger clinical trials is warranted. STUDY TYPE: Prospective cohort study, level of evidence: II.

Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial-thickness burns.

BACKGROUND: Burn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone, but deeper burns or those that fail to heal promptly are usually treated surgically. Acute burns surgery aims to debride burnt skin until healthy tissue is reached, at which point skin grafts or temporising dressings are applied. Conventional debridement is performed with an angled blade, tangentially shaving burned tissue until healthy tissue is encountered. Hydrosurgery, an alternative to conventional blade debridement, simultaneously debrides, irrigates, and removes tissue with the aim of minimising damage to uninjured tissue. Despite the increasing use of hydrosurgery, its efficacy and the risk of adverse events following surgery for burns is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hydrosurgical debridement and skin grafting versus conventional surgical debridement and skin grafting for the treatment of acute partial-thickness burns. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people of any age with acute partial-thickness burn injury and assessed the use of hydrosurgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT met the inclusion criteria of this review. The study sample size was 61 paediatric participants with acute partial-thickness burns of 3% to 4% total burn surface area. Participants were randomised to hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. There may be little or no difference in mean time to complete healing (mean difference (MD) 0.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.25 to 6.25) or postoperative infection risk (risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11). These results are based on very low-certainty evidence, which was downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (MD 0.2 minutes, 95% CI -12.2 to 12.6); again, the certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in scar outcomes at six months. Health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review contains one randomised trial of hydrosurgery versus conventional debridement in a paediatric population with low percentage of total body surface area burn injuries. Based on the available trial data, there may be little or no difference between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement in terms of time to complete healing, postoperative infection, operative time, and scar outcomes at six months. These results are based on very low-certainty evidence. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse event outcomes is required.

Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of high-quality randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to impact burn wound infection (BWI) outcomes. Evidence synthesis requires that BWI is reported in a consistent manner. Cochrane reviews investigating interventions for burns report that the indicators used to diagnose BWI are variable or not described, indicating a need to standardise reporting. BWI is complex and diagnosed by clinician judgement, informed by patient-reported symptoms, clinical signs, serum markers of inflammation and bacteria in the wound. Indicators for reporting BWI should be important for diagnosis, frequently observed in patients with BWI and assessed as part of routine healthcare. A minimum (core) set of indicators of BWI, reported consistently, will facilitate evidence synthesis and support clinical decision-making. AIMS: The Infection Consensus in Burns study aims to identify a core indicator set for reporting the diagnosis of BWI in research studies. METHODS: (1) Evidence review: a systematic review of indicators used in trials and observational studies reporting BWI outcomes to identify a long list of candidate indicators; (2) refinement of the long list into a smaller set of survey questions with an expert steering group; (3) a two-round Delphi survey with 100 multidisciplinary expert stakeholders, to achieve consensus on a short list of indicators; (4) a consensus meeting with expert stakeholders to agree on the BWI core indicator set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participants will be recruited through professional bodies, such that ethical approval from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (HRA) is not needed. The core indicator set will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, co-production with journal editors, research funders and professional bodies, and presentation at national conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096647.

In hot water: The impact of burn injuries from hot water bottles - Experience of a UK burns unit and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Hot water bottles (HWBs) are a common domestic item in the UK. Their use is associated with burns injuries, either by contact for prolonged periods with the skin, or through the HWB leaking or bursting. METHODS: We used electronic health records to retrospectively review HWB related burns treated by the Burns Service at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital between January 2017-March 2018. We analysed the mechanism of injury, size and depth of burn, method of treatment and costs associated with HWB burns in our centre. RESULTS: 80 patients sustained HWB burns during this period, with a similar incidence of contact burns (41/80, 51.3%) and scalds (38/80, 47.5%), with one steam burn. The commonest area burnt was the lower limb (40/80, 50%). Most burns had a TBSA of 1% or smaller (50/80, 62.5%). 30 patients had full thickness burns, with 37 in total received operative management. We estimate that the total cost for managing this cohort of patients was over £68,634. CONCLUSIONS: There are a significant proportion of patients presenting with HWB burns that could be prevented, with significant impact on patient morbidity and resource burden on the NHS. Targeted public awareness campaigns are needed to ameliorate these injuries.

Implementation of a checklist to enhance operation note quality at a UK burns centre.

INTRODUCTION: Operation notes are fundamental for clinical, academic and medico-legal purposes. Good Surgical Practice (2014) provides guidelines to assist note completion but the literature suggests poor adherence to these. The aim of this study was to evaluate and improve operation note quality at a UK burns centre through implementation of a burns surgery-specific checklist. METHODS: A 22-component burns surgery-specific checklist, modified from Good Surgical Practice (2014), was designed and implemented. The quality of 80 operation notes (40 pre and 40 post-implementation) was assessed against this checklist. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests were used to evaluate pre and post-intervention note quality. RESULTS: Before checklist implementation, only 6/22 components (27.3%) were recorded on every note. 4/22 components (18.2%) were not recorded on any, including microbiology specimen and clinical photography, which are particularly important in burns. After implementation, 16/22 (72.7%) were recorded on every note, with a statistically significant improvement in all other components (p≤0.01), except venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (p=0.10). The median percentage score of components recorded improved from 78.2 to 100% (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study in available literature to show that a burns surgery-specific checklist can significantly improve burns operation note quality. This presents a simple and cheap method to improve note quality and may enhance post-operative intra/inter-team communication and patient care. At our unit, we have now developed an electronic checklist format with mandatory field completion to facilitate total compliance.

Attribution bias underlying burns-induced anxiety symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Burn injuries are a debilitating cause of morbidity and mortality associated with the long-term impact of psychological factors on quality of life. Accurate assessment of the differential impact of burn sequelae and anxiety is often complicated by the overlap between psychological and somatic symptoms in burns patients. The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is one validated psychometric tool for anxiety assessment. The primary objective of this study is to investigate whether utilising the BAI as a tool to assess for anxiety in burns patients is biased due to the confounding of symptoms of anxiety with the physical sequelae of a burn injury. METHODS: This is a single-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study. The study was conducted in accordance with the UK Good Clinical Practice guidelines (CAPP reference number 506). Patients were recruited over a three-month period from November 2016 to February 2017 and were offered a modified BAI questionnaire to complete. Patients were asked to indicate to what degree they attributed each symptom to their physical injury or their psychological state on a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: 50 patients, comprising 33 females (66%) and 17 males (34%), participated in the study with a median age of 33.5 years (range: 20-88). Date of injury spanned May 1991 to January 2017. Percentage of the total body surface area (% TBSA) affected by burn ranged from 1 to 86%. Patients attributed eight of the 21 self-report items within the BAI as being more physical than psychological in origin. The results reveal a statistical significant difference in patient VAS scores between physical (mean: 34.16, 95% CI: 29.04-39.28) and psychological (mean: 61.2, 95% CI: 56.33-66.17) BAI items, with p<0.0001. In addition, patients with a facial burn injury were more likely to report 'face flushed' (Mann-Whitney U Test, Z=-2.11, p<0.05) and patients with a hand burn injury were more likely to report 'hands trembling' (Mann-Whitney U Test, Z=-2.52, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study found preliminary evidence suggesting that the BAI may, in part, represent misattributed symptoms of cutaneous injury from burns. However, whilst our findings suggest an attribution bias, there is not enough evidence from this data to comment on whether its use should be restricted in burns patients. Further research is needed to formally quantify convergent and divergent validity through structured interviews. In addition, further research using other self-report tools of anxiety in burns patients would be useful to corroborate the prospect of biased and confounded anxiety scores.

A comparative evaluation of spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis and laser doppler imaging in the assessment of adult and paediatric burn injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical assessment of mid-dermal burns can be challenging. Currently, laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is the gold standard adjunct in the assessment of burn injuries. Although LDI has demonstrated reliable accuracy, it poses various limitations in routine use including cost and ease of use. In comparison, spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis (SIA) is a relatively cheaper technique, which can be carried out using a modified digital camera that enables easy image acquisition. We aim to compare the accuracy of the two modalities in the assessment of mid-dermal burn injuries. METHODS: We recruited 29 patients with mid-dermal burns presenting within 2 to 5 days post burn. Forty-five burn regions of interest were identified, and the patients underwent imaging using both the modalities. Subsequent clinical outcome was followed up and showed that treatment remained unaffected by participation. Two clinicians then independently predicted the healing potential of each burn region retrospectively as per images from either modality. RESULTS: McNemar's test indicated that there is no significant difference between the accuracy of the two modalities (p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the accuracy of SIA is comparable to that of LDI. Our experience with SIA indicates its potential as a cost-effective and user-friendly adjunct in decision-making.

Perioperative use of herbal, complementary, and over the counter medicines in plastic surgery patients.

OBJECTIVE: Over the last 50 years, there has been a surge of interest by both the public and medical practitioners in therapies and disciplines that are not considered part of mainstream medical care. The title given to these is complementary and alternative medicine. Of all these branches, our interest is the increasing use of herbal medicines, traditional medicines (such as Chinese or Indian), homeopathy and "dietary supplements," and the influence they may have on our practice. Our objective was to examine the prevalence and reasons for use of complementary and alternative medicines, the current regulations, and proposed policy changes affecting the licensing of these products. In addition, we highlight some of the problems that have been experienced with herbal and traditional medicines. METHODS: A prospective analysis of herbal and over the counter medicines used by elective plastic surgery patients. RESULTS: Of 100 elective plastic surgery patients undergoing procedures at St Andrew's Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, 44% of patients were taking a dietary supplement, herbal, or homeopathic remedy. In none of the patients was this documented in the notes by either the surgeon or anesthetist. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that clear documentation of the use of nonprescribed medicines becomes part of standard practice and, furthermore, that patients stop all such medications 2 weeks prior to surgery until the efficacy, interactions, and safety profiles are clearly established.