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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional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.

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.

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.