A Narrative Review of the History of Skin Grafting in Burn Care.

Thermal injuries have been a phenomenon intertwined with the human condition since the dawn of our species. Autologous skin translocation, also known as skin grafting, has played an important role in burn wound management and has a rich history of its own. In fact, some of the oldest known medical texts describe ancient methods of skin translocation. In this article, we examine how skin grafting has evolved from its origins of necessity in the ancient world to the well-calibrated tool utilized in modern medicine. The popularity of skin grafting has ebbed and flowed multiple times throughout history, often suppressed for cultural, religious, pseudo-scientific, or anecdotal reasons. It was not until the 1800s, that skin grafting was widely accepted as a safe and effective treatment for wound management, and shortly thereafter for burn injuries. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries skin grafting advanced considerably, accelerated by exponential medical progress and the occurrence of man-made disasters and global warfare. The introduction of surgical instruments specifically designed for skin grafting gave surgeons more control over the depth and consistency of harvested tissues, vastly improving outcomes. The invention of powered surgical instruments, such as the electric dermatome, reduced technical barriers for many surgeons, allowing the practice of skin grafting to be extended ubiquitously from a small group of technically gifted reconstructive surgeons to nearly all interested sub-specialists. The subsequent development of biologic and synthetic skin substitutes have been spurred onward by the clinical challenges unique to burn care: recurrent graft failure, microbial wound colonization, and limited donor site availability. These improvements have laid the framework for more advanced forms of tissue engineering including micrografts, cultured skin grafts, aerosolized skin cell application, and stem-cell impregnated dermal matrices. In this article, we will explore the convoluted journey that modern skin grafting has taken and potential future directions the procedure may yet go.

Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care assay in supporting a triage algorithm for medical admissions with possible COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a triage algorithm used to identify and isolate patients with suspected COVID-19 among medical patients needing admission to hospital using simple clinical criteria and the FebriDx assay. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING: Large acute National Health Service hospital in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All medical admissions from the emergency department between 10 August 2020 and 4 November 2020 with a valid SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result. INTERVENTIONS: Medical admissions were triaged as likely, possible or unlikely COVID-19 based on clinical criteria. Patients triaged as possible COVID-19 underwent FebriDx lateral flow assay on capillary blood, and those positive for myxovirus resistance protein A (a host response protein) were managed as likely COVID-19. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the algorithm and the FebriDx assay using SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs as the reference standard. RESULTS: 4.0% (136) of 3443 medical admissions had RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Prevalence of COVID-19 was 46% (80/175) in those triaged as likely, 4.1% (50/1225) in possible and 0.3% (6/2033) in unlikely COVID-19. Using a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR reference standard, clinical triage had sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 91% to 98%) and specificity of 61.5% (95% CI 59.8% to 63.1%), while the triage algorithm including FebriDx had sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and specificity of 86.4% (95% CI 85.2% to 87.5%). While 2033 patients were deemed not to require isolation using clinical criteria alone, the addition of FebriDx to clinical triage allowed a further 826 patients to be released from isolation, reducing the need for isolation rooms by 9.5 per day, 95% CI 8.9 to 10.2. Ten patients missed by the algorithm had mild or asymptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A triage algorithm including the FebriDx assay had good sensitivity and was useful to 'rule-out' COVID-19 among medical admissions to hospital.