Effectiveness of tranexamic acid in burn patients undergoing surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reducing blood loss during excisional surgery in burn patients remains a challenge. Tranexamic acid during surgery can potentially reduce blood loss. The use of tranexamic acid during excisional surgery in burn patients has recently been described in a review and meta-analysis. However, quality assessment on studies included was not performed and this review did not apply independent reviewers. Quality assessment of studies investigating the effectiveness of tranexamic acid in burn patients is crucial before concusions can be drawn. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature investigating the effectiveness of tranexamic acid in burn patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted. The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023396183). RESULTS: Five studies including two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 303 patients were included. Risk of bias of the included studies was moderate to high. Individual results of the studies were heterogeneous. In three studies of moderate quality the administration of tranexamic acid resulted in a reduction of blood loss per unit excised area, accounting as moderate level of evidence. In two low-quality studies and one moderate quality study the administration of tranexamic acid resulted in a reduction of transfused packed Red Blood Cells (pRBC's), accounting for moderate level of evidence. Postoperative haemoglobin levels were higher after tranexamic acid administration in one study, accounting for insufficient evidence. Meta-analysis pooling overall blood loss from two separate RCTs failed to detect a statistically significant reduction. Substantial heterogeneity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate level of evidence indicates that tranexamic acid reduces blood loss per unit of excised area and transfusion of packed Red Blood Cells. Results indicate that tranexamic acid can be beneficial in burn patients undergoing surgery. More high-quality research is needed to confirm these results. Future studies should focus on the dosing of tranexamic acid, the administration approaches, and even consider combining these approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023396183.

Short-term and long-term increased mortality in elderly patients with burn injury: a national longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The population of elderly patients with burn injuries is growing. Insight into long-term mortality rates of elderly after burn injury and predictors affecting outcome is limited. This study aimed to provide this information. METHODS: A multicentre observational retrospective cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥65 years, admitted with burn injuries between 2009 and 2018, were included. Data were retrieved from electronic patient records and the Dutch Burn Repository R3. Mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess predictors for in-hospital mortality and mortality after discharge at 1 year and five-year. Survival analysis was used to assess predictors of five-year mortality. RESULTS: In total, 682/771 admitted patients were discharged. One-year and five-year mortality rates were 8.1 and 23.4%. The SMRs were 1.9(95%CI 1.5-2.5) and 1.4(95%CI 1.2-1.6), respectively. The SMRs were highest in patients aged 75-80 years at 1 year (SMRs 2.7, 95%CI 1.82-3.87) and five-year in patients aged 65-74 years (SMRs 10.1, 95%CI 7.7-13.0). Independent predictors for mortality at 1 year after discharge were higher age (OR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0-1.1), severe comorbidity, (ASA-score ≥ 3) (OR 4.8, 95%CI 2.3-9.7), and a non-home discharge location (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.8). The relative risk of dying up to five-year was increased by age (HR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0-1.1), severe comorbidity (HR 2.3, 95%CI 1.6-3.5), and non-home discharge location (HR 2.1, 95%CI 1.4-3.2). CONCLUSION: Long-term mortality until five-year after burn injury was higher than the age and sex-matched general Dutch population, and predicted by higher age, severe comorbidity, and a non-home discharge destination. Next to pre-injury characteristics, potential long-lasting systemic consequences on biological mechanisms following burn injuries probably play a role in increased mortality. Decreased health status makes patients more prone to burn injuries, leading to early death.

Hydrosurgical and conventional debridement of burns: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Tangential excision of burned tissue followed by skin grafting is the cornerstone of burn surgery. Hydrosurgery has become popular for tangential excision, with the hypothesis that enhanced preservation of vital dermal tissue reduces scarring. The aim of this trial was to compare scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement before split-skin grafting. METHODS: A double-blind randomized within-patient multicentre controlled trial was conducted in patients with burns that required split-skin grafting. One wound area was randomized to hydrosurgical debridement and the other to Weck knife debridement. The primary outcome was scar quality at 12 months, assessed with the observer part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Secondary outcomes included complications, scar quality, colour, pliability, and histological dermal preservation. RESULTS: Some 137 patients were randomized. At 12 months, scars of the hydrosurgical debrided wounds had a lower POSAS observer total item score (mean 2.42 (95 per cent c.i. 2.26 to 2.59) versus 2.54 (95 per cent c.i. 2.36 to 2.72; P = 0.023)) and overall opinion score (mean 3.08 (95 per cent c.i. 2.88 to 3.28) versus 3.30 (95 per cent c.i. 3.09-3.51); P = 0.006). Patient-reported scar quality and pliability measurements were significantly better for the hydrosurgically debrided wounds. Complication rates did not differ between both treatments. Histologically, significantly more dermis was preserved with hydrosurgery (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: One year after surgery scar quality and pliability was better for hydrosurgically debrided burns, probably owing to enhanced histological preservation of dermis. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL6085 (NTR6232 (http://www.trialregister.nl)).

Scar quality in children with burns 5-7 years after injury: A cross-sectional multicentre study.

Long-term scar formation is an important adverse consequence in children with burns, however, information regarding scar quality in the long-term is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated scar quality and its predictors in children with burns 5-7 years after injury. Parents of children with mild/intermediate burns (≤10% total body surface area burned), and of children with severe burns (>10% burned) completed the patient scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS 2.0) for their children's-in their opinion-worst scar 5-7 years post-burn. Outcomes and predictive factors of scar quality were studied, and, for children with severe burns, POSAS parent scores were compared with observer scores. We included 103 children with mild/intermediate burns and 28 with severe burns (response rate: 51%). Most children (87%) had scars that differed from normal skin, with most differences reported for colour, and least for pain. Except for colour, children with severe burns had significantly higher scores (difference 0-2 points) on all scar characteristics (representing poorer scar quality) compared with children with mild/intermediate burns. Parent POSAS scores were on average 2.0-2.6 points higher compared to observer scores. Number of surgeries predicted both the mean POSAS and the mean overall opinion of a scar. In conclusion, 5-7 years post-burn, the scar of the majority of children differed from normal skin, especially on the characteristic colour. The uncovered insights are useful in counselling of children and their parents on expectations of the final outcome of their (children's) scar(s), and help in further targeting scar prevention strategies for the individual child.

Course of scar quality of donor sites following split skin graft harvesting: Comparison between patients and observers.

There exists little to no data on the development of donor-site scars that remain after split skin graft harvesting. The objectives of this study were to (a) examine changes in characteristics of donor-site scar quality over time and (b) assess the agreement between patient-reported and observer-reported donor-site scar quality in a burn population. A prospective cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent split skin grafting for their burn injury. Patients and observers completed the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for the first harvested donor site at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. This study included 80 patients with a median age of 34 years. At 3 months post-surgery, the patients scored the POSAS items itch and color as most deviant from normal skin, both improved between 3 and 12 months (3.1 vs 1.5 and 5.0 vs 3.5, respectively [P < .001]). Other scar characteristics did not show significant change over time. The patients' overall opinion score improved from 3.9 to 3.2 (P < .001). Observers rated the items vascularization and pigmentation most severe, only vascularization improved significantly between both time points. Their overall opinion score decreased from 2.7 to 2.3 (P < .001). The inter-observer agreement between patients and observers was considered poor (ICC < 0.4) at both time points. Results of current study indicate that observers underestimate the impact of donor-site scars. This has to be kept in mind while guiding therapy and expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, prospective cohort study.

Improved and standardized method for assessing years lived with disability after burns and its application to estimate the non-fatal burden of disease of burn injuries in Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Burden of disease estimates are an important resource in public health. Currently, robust estimates are not available for the burn population. Our objectives are to adapt a refined methodology (INTEGRIS method) to burns and to apply this new INTEGRIS-burns method to estimate, and compare, the burden of disease of burn injuries in Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands. METHODS: Existing European and Western-Australian health-related quality of life (HRQL) datasets were combined to derive disability weights for three homogenous burn injury groups based on percentage total body surface area (%TBSA) burned. Subsequently, incidence data from Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands from 2010 to 2017 were used to compute annual non-fatal burden of disease estimates for each of these three countries. Non-fatal burden of disease was measured by years lived with disability (YLD). RESULTS: The combined dataset included 7159 HRQL (EQ-5D-3 L) outcomes from 3401 patients. Disability weights ranged from 0.046 (subgroup < 5% TBSA burned > 24 months post-burn) to 0.497 (subgroup > 20% TBSA burned 0-1 months post-burn). In 2017 the non-fatal burden of disease of burns for the three countries (YLDs/100,000 inhabitants) was 281 for Australia, 279 for New Zealand and 133 for the Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS: This project established a method for more precise estimates of the YLDs of burns, as it is the only method adapted to the nature of burn injuries and their recovery. Compared to previous used methods, the INTEGRIS-burns method includes improved disability weights based on severity categorization of burn patients; a better substantiated proportion of patients with lifelong disability based; and, the application of burn specific recovery timeframes. Information derived from the adapted method can be used as input for health decision making at both the national and international level. Future studies should investigate whether the application is valid in low- and middle- income countries.

Flaminal® versus Flamazine® in the treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial on clinical effectiveness and scar quality (FLAM study).

Although partial thickness burns are the most frequently reported burn injuries, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and scar quality of Flaminal® Forte to silver sulfadiazine (Flamazine®) in the treatment of partial thickness burns. In this two-arm open label multicenter randomized controlled trial, adult patients with acute partial thickness burns and an affected total body surface area of less than 30% were randomized between Flaminal® Forte and Flamazine® and followed for 12 months. Dressing changes in the Flamazine® group were performed daily, and in the Flaminal® group during the first 3 days post burn and thereafter every other day until complete wound healing or surgery. Forty-one patients were randomly allocated to Flaminal® Forte and 48 patients to Flamazine®. The primary outcome was time to wound healing, which did not differ between the groups: median 18 days with Flaminal® Forte (range 8-49 days) versus 16 days with Flamazine® (range 7-48 days; p = 0.24). Regarding the secondary outcomes during hospital admission, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups concerning need for surgery, pain scores, pruritus, or pain-related and anticipatory anxiety. More patients in the Flaminal® group developed wound colonization (78% versus 32%, p < 0.001), but the treatment groups did not differ regarding the incidence of local infections and use of systemic antibiotics. In terms of scar quality, no statistically significant differences between both treatment groups were found regarding subjective scar assessment (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)), scar melanin and pigmentation (DermaSpectrometer®), and scar elasticity and maximal extension (Cutometer®) during 12 month postburn. In conclusion, time to wound healing did not differ, but the use of Flaminal® Forte seemed favorable because less dressing changes are needed which lowers the burden of wound care.

Patient-reported scar quality of adults after burn injuries: A five-year multicenter follow-up study.

Scar formation is an important adverse consequence of burns. How patients appraise their scar quality is often studied shortly after sustaining the injury, but information in the long-term is scarce. Our aim was, therefore, to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of burn scars. Adults with a burn center admission of ≥1 day between August 2011 and September 2012 were invited to complete a questionnaire on long-term consequences of burns. We enriched this sample with patients with severe burns (>20% total body surface area [TBSA] burned or TBSA full thickness >5%) treated between January 2010 and March 2013. Self-reported scar quality was assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Patients completed this scale for their-in their opinion-most severe scar ≥5 years after burns. This study included 251 patients with a mean %TBSA burned of 10%. The vast majority (91.4%) reported at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and 78.9% of the patients' overall opinion was that their scar deviated from normal skin. Patients with severe burns had higher POSAS scores, representing worse scar quality, than patients with mild/intermediate burns, except for color, which was high in both groups. A longer hospital stay predicted reduced scar quality (both mean POSAS and mean overall opinion of the scar) in multivariate analyses. In addition, female gender was also associated with a poorer overall opinion of the scar. In conclusion, this study provides new insights in long-term scar quality. Scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the burn population more than 5 years after burns, especially in those with severe burns. Female gender is associated with a poorer patients' overall opinion of their scar, which may be an indication of gender differences in perception of scar quality after burns.

Ultrasound assessment of the sural nerve in patients with neuropathic pain after ankle surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The sural nerve may be damaged after ankle injury. The aim of our study was to determine the diagnostic utility of high-resolution sonography in patients with ankle fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation in whom there was a clinical suspicion of sural neuropathy. METHODS: We examined the ultrasound (US) characteristics of patients with and without postsurgical sural neuropathic pain and healthy volunteers. Cross-sectional area (CSA), echogenicity, and vascularization of the sural nerves were recorded. RESULTS: Fourteen participants and all sural nerves were identified. CSA (P < 0.001) and vascularization (P = 0.002) were increased in symptomatic patients when compared with asymptomatic patients and healthy volunteers. There were no significant differences in nerve echogenicity (P = 0.983). DISCUSSION: US may be a valuable tool for evaluating clinically suspected sural nerve damage after ankle stabilization surgery. Sural nerve abnormalities are seen in patients with postsurgical neuropathic pain. Muscle Nerve 57: 407-413, 2018.

Long-term scar quality in burns with three distinct healing potentials: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

The laser Doppler imager is used in cases of indeterminate burn depth to accurately predict wound healing time at an early stage. The laser Doppler imager classifies burns into three estimated healing potentials as follows: high, <14 days; intermediate, 14-21 days; and low, >21 days. At this time, the relationship between these healing potentials and long-term scar quality is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term scar quality of burns with three distinct healing potentials. The secondary objectives were to compare treatment strategies in intermediate wounds, to study the effect of the timing of surgery on low healing potential wounds and to identify predictors of reduced scar quality. Hence, in a prospective cohort study, scar quality was determined in patients whose burns were assessed with laser Doppler imaging. Scar Quality was assessed with objective and subjective measurement tools, including overall scar quality (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) as a primary outcome and color and elasticity parameters. A total of 141 patients (>19 months postburn) with 216 scars were included. Wounds with high and intermediate healing potential did not significantly differ regarding scar quality. Wounds with a low healing potential had a significantly lower scar quality. Analysis of 76 surgically treated low healing potential wounds showed no significant differences in the primary outcome regarding the timing of surgery (≤14 days vs. >14). Predictors of reduced long-term scar quality were darker skin type and multiple surgeries. In conclusion, scar quality was strongly related to the healing potential category. Scar quality was very similar in high and intermediate healing potential wounds. No positive effects were found on scar quality or on healing time in surgically treated wounds with intermediate healing potential, advocating a conservative approach. Further studies should focus on the optimal timing of surgery in low healing potential wounds.

Routine urinalysis in patients with a blunt abdominal trauma mechanism is not valuable to detect urogenital injury.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the routine performance of urinalysis in patients with a blunt trauma mechanism is still valuable. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged ≥16 years, admitted to a Dutch Level 1 trauma centre between January 2008 and August 2011, were included in this retrospective cohort study. Results of urinalysis (erythrocytes per µL) were divided into no, microscopic or macroscopic haematuria. Patients were divided into four groups based on whether a urinalysis was performed or not, with or without imaging for urogenital injury. Main outcome measures were the presence of urogenital injury and whether the findings on urine specimen and/or imaging led to clinical consequences. RESULTS: A total of 1815 patients were included. The prevalence of intra-abdominal and urogenital injuries was 13% and 8%, respectively. In 1363 patients (75%), urinalysis was performed and 1031 patients (57%) underwent imaging for urogenital injury as well. The presence of macroscopic haematuria (n=16) led to clinical consequences in 73% of the patients (11 out of 15), regardless of the findings on imaging. Microscopic haematuria on urinalysis in combination with no findings on imaging led to clinical consequences in 8 out of 212 patients (4%). Microscopic haematuria on urinalysis in patients who did not have imaging for urogenital injury did not lead to clinical consequences (0 out of 54 patients; 0%). All the 8 patients who underwent an intervention had positive findings on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support the routine performance of urinalysis in patients admitted with a blunt trauma mechanism. Although urinalysis could be valuable in specific patient populations, we should consider omitting this investigation as a routine part of the assessment of trauma patients.

Costs of burn care: a systematic review.

Burn care is traditionally considered expensive care. However, detailed information about the costs of burn care is scarce despite the increased need for this information and the enhanced focus on healthcare cost control. In this study, economic literature on burn care was systematically reviewed to examine the problem of burn-related costs. Cost or economic evaluation studies on burn care that had been published in international peer-reviewed journals from 1950 to 2012 were identified. The methodology of these articles was critically appraised by two reviewers, and cost results were extracted. A total of 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly all of the studies were cost studies (n = 153) with a healthcare perspective (n = 139) from high-income countries (n = 127). Hospital charges were often used as a proxy for costs (n = 44). Three studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. The mean total healthcare cost per burn patient in high-income countries was $88,218 (range $704-$717,306; median $44,024). A wide variety of methodological approaches and cost prices was found. We recommend that cost studies and economic evaluations employ a standard approach to improve the quality and harmonization of economic evaluation studies, optimize comparability, and improve insight into burn care costs and efficiency.

The minimal important change (MIC) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) 2.0.

BACKGROUND: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is frequently used to assess scar quality after burns. It is important to be aware of the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) to establish if a POSAS score represents a clinically relevant change or difference. The aim of this study is to explore the MIC and MCID of POSAS version 2.0. METHODS: This prospective study included 127 patients with deep dermal burns that underwent split thickness skin grafting with a mean age of 44 years (range 0 - 87) and total body surface area burned of 10 % (range 0.5 - 55). POSAS data was obtained for one burn scar area at three, six, and 12 months after split skin grafting. At the second and third visits, patients rated the degree of clinical change in scar quality in comparison to the previous visit. At 12 months, they completed the POSAS for a second burn scar area and rated the degree of clinical difference between the two scar areas. Two anchor-based methods were used to determine the MIC and MCID. RESULTS: MIC values of the patient POSAS ranged from - 0.59 to - 0.29 between three and six months and from - 0.75 to - 0.38 between six and 12 months follow-up. Both had a poor discriminatory value. MCID values ranged from - 0.39 and - 0.08, with a better discriminatory value. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that patients consider minor differences (less than 0.75 on the 1-10 scale) in POSAS scores as clinically important scar quality changes. MCID values can be used to evaluate the effects of burn treatment and perform sample-size calculations.

Aetiology of bioethanol related burn accidents: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Since insight into the motivation of behaviour in bioethanol related burn accidents is lacking, this study aimed to qualitatively examine influencing factors in bioethanol related burn accidents. In order to identify target points for effective burn prevention. METHODS: Patients previously admitted with bioethanol related acute non-intentional burn injury to the three Dutch burn centres were eligible. One interviewer conducted fourteen semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed and coded by two independent researchers. Conclusions were drawn based on generalised statements on the concerned topics. RESULTS: Four overall themes in influencing factors were found, namely 1) motivation; including non-designated use and impaired judgement, 2) knowledge and education; including unknown product and properties and information overload, 3) risk perception; including poor recognisability of risks and preferred trial and error and 4) thresholds; including easy availability and unclear liability. CONCLUSION: Trust in consumers may be over-estimated, as proper use cannot be expected. To prevent future bioethanol related burn incidents, thresholds for obtaining and using bioethanol should be increased, safe alternatives to ignite open fires and wood stoves should be provided and knowledge and warnings should be improved.

Timing of surgery in acute deep partial-thickness burns: A study protocol.

For deep partial-thickness burns no consensus on the optimal treatment has been reached due to conflicting study outcomes with low quality evidence. Treatment options in high- and middle-income countries include conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed; and early excision and grafting. The majority of timing of surgery studies focus on survival rather than on quality of life. This study protocol describes a study that aims to compare long-term scar quality, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes between the treatment options. A multicentre prospective study will be conducted in the three Dutch burn centres (Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen). All adult patients with acute deep-partial thickness burns, based on healing potential with Laser Doppler Imaging, are eligible for inclusion. During a nine-month baseline period, standard practice will be monitored. This includes conservative treatment with dressings and topical agents, and excision and grafting of residual defects if needed 14-21 days post-burn. The subsequent nine months, early surgery is advocated, involving excision and grafting in the first week to ten days post-burn. The primary outcome compared between the two groups is long-term scar quality assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 twelve months after discharge. Secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes like quality of life and return to work. The aim of the study is to assess long-term scar quality in deep partial-thickness burns after conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed, compared to early excision and grafting. Adding to the ongoing debate on the optimal treatment of these burns. The broad range of studied outcomes will be used for the development of a decision aid for deep partial-thickness burns, to fully inform patients at the point of consent to surgery and support optimal person-centred care.

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.

Predicting blood loss in burn excisional surgery.

BACKGROUND: Blood loss during burn excisional surgery remains an important factor as it is associated with significant comorbidity, mortality and longer length of stay. Blood loss is, among others, influenced by length of surgery, burn size, excision size and age. Most literature available is aimed at large burns and little research is available for small burns. Therefore, the goal of this study is to investigate blood loss and develop a prediction model to identify patient at risk for blood loss during burn excisional surgery ≤ 10% body surface area. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients who underwent burn excisional surgery of ≤ 10% body surface area in the period 2013-2018. Duplicates, patients with missing data and delayed surgeries were excluded. Primary outcome was blood loss. A prediction model for per-operative blood loss (>250 ml) was built using a multivariable logistic regression analysis with stepwise backward elimination. Discriminative ability was assessed by the area under the ROC-curve in conjunction with optimism and calibration. RESULTS: In total 269 patients were included for analysis. Median blood loss was 50 ml (0-150) / % body surface area (BSA) excised and 0.28 (0-0.81) ml / cm2. Median burn size was 4% BSA and median excision size was 2% BSA. Blood loss of> 250 ml was present in 39% of patients. The model can predict blood loss> 250 ml based on %BSA excised, length of surgery and ASA-score with an AUC of 0.922 (95% CI 0.883 - 0.949) and an AUC after optimism correction of 0.915. The calibration curve showed an intercept of 0.0 (95% CI -0.36 to 0.36) with a slope of 1.0 (95% CI 0.78-1.22). CONCLUSION: Median blood loss during burn excisional surgery of ≤ 10% BSA is 50 ml / % BSA excised and 0.28 ml / cm2 excised. However, a substantial part of patients is at risk for higher blood loss. The prediction model can predict P(blood loss>250 ml) with an AUC of 0.922, based on expected length of surgery, ASA-score and size of excision. The model can be used to identify patients at risk for significant blood loss (>250 ml).

Reliability and validity of a frailty assessment tool in specialized burn care, a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a predictor of adverse outcomes in elderly patients. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is an often-used frailty assessment instrument. However, the CFS's reliability and validity in patients with burn injuries are unknown. This study aimed to assess the CFS's inter-rater reliability and validity (predictive validity, known group validity and convergent validity) in patients with burn injuries treated to specialized burn care. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 50 years with burn injuries, with a primary admission in 2015-2018, were included. Based on information in the electronic patient files, a research team member scored the CFS retrospectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Krippendorff's α. Validity was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Patients with a CFS ≥ 5 were considered frail. RESULTS: In total, 540 patients were included, with a mean age of 65.8 years (SD 11.5) and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) burned of 8.5%. The CFS was used to assess frailty in 540 patients and the reliability of the CFS was scored for 212 patients. Mean CFS was 3.4(SD 2.0). Inter-rater reliability was adequate, Krippendorff's α 0.69 (95%CI 0.62-0.74). A positive frailty screening was predictive of a non-home discharge location (OR 3.57, 95%CI 2.16-5.93), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR 1.06-8.77), and a higher mortality rate within 12 months after discharge (OR 4.61, 95%CI 1.99-10.65) after adjustment for age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. Frail patients were more likely to be older (for<70 vs. ≥70 years odds ratio 2.88, 95%CI 1.95-4.25) and their comorbidities were more severe (ASA ≥3 vs 1-2 OR 6.43, 95%CI 4.26-9.70) (known group validity). The CFS was significantly related (rSpearman=0.55) to the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) frailty screening, reflecting a fair-good correlation between the CFS and DSMS frailty screening outcomes. CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty scale is reliable and has shown its validity, including its association with adverse outcomes in patients with burn injury admitted to specialized burn care. Early frailty assessment with the CFS must be considered, to optimize early recognition and treatment of frailty.

The Role of Burn Centers in the Treatment of Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections: A Nationwide Dutch Study.

Patients with extensive and complex wounds due to Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections (NSTI) may be referred to a burn center. This study describes the characteristics, outcomes, as well as diagnostic challenges of these patients. Patients admitted to three hospitals with a burn center for the treatment of NSTI in a 5-year period were included. Eighty patients (median age 54 years, 60% male) were identified, of whom 30 (38%) were referred by other centers, usually after survival of the initial septic phase. Those referred from other centers, compared to those primarily admitted to the study hospitals, were more likely to have group A streptococcal involvement (62% vs 35%, p = .02), larger wounds (median 7% vs 2% total body surface area, p < .001), and a longer length of stay (median 49 vs 22 days, p < .001). Despite a high incidence of septic shock (50%), the mortality rate was low (12%) for those primarily admitted. Approximately half (53%) of the patients were initially misdiagnosed upon presentation, which was associated with delay to first surgery (16 hours vs 4 hours, p < .001). Those initially misdiagnosed had more (severe) comorbidities, and less frequently reported pain or blue livid discoloration of the skin. This study underlines the burn centers' function as referral centers for extensively affected patients with NSTI. Besides the unique wound and reconstructive expertise, the low mortality rate indicates these centers provide adequate acute care as well. A major remaining challenge remains recognition of the disease upon presentation. Future studies in which factors associated with misdiagnosis are explored are needed.

European Burns Association guidelines for the management of burn mass casualty incidents within a European response plan.

BACKGROUND: A European response plan to burn mass casualty incidents has been jointly developed by the European Commission and the European Burn Association. Upon request for assistance by an affected country, the plan outlines a mechanism for coordinated international assistance, aiming to alleviate the burden of care in the affected country and to offer adequate specialized care to all patients who can benefit from it. To that aim, Burn Assessment Teams are deployed to assess and triage patients. Their transportation priority recommendations are used to distribute outnumbering burn casualties to foreign burn centers. Following an appropriate medical evacuation, these casualties receive specialized care in those facilities. METHODS: The European Burns Association's disaster committee developed medical-organizational guidelines to support this European plan. The experts identified fields of interest, defined questions to be addressed, performed relevant literature searches, and added their expertise in burn disaster preparedness and response. Due to the lack of high-level evidence in the available literature, recommendations and specially designed implementation tools were provided from expert opinion. The European Burns Association officially endorsed the draft recommendations in 2019, and the final full text was approved by the EBA executive committee in 2022. RECOMMENDATIONS: The resulting 46 recommendations address four fields. Field 1 underlines the need for national preparedness plans and the necessary core items within such plans, including coordination and integration with an international response. Field 2 describes Burn Assessment Teams' roles, composition, training requirements, and reporting goals. Field 3 addresses the goals of specialized in-hospital triage, appropriate severity criteria, and their effects on priorities and triage. Finally, field 4 covers medical evacuations, including their timing and organization, the composition of evacuation teams and their assets, preparation, and the principles of en route care.