RESUMEN
Lubricating agents facilitate effective harvesting of split-thickness skin grafts. Multiple agents, including water-based gel, mineral oil, glycerin, and poloxamer 188, have been utilized in this capacity. The agent selected is typically at the discretion of the provider and institution, as a single "ideal" lubricant remains to be objectively established. Furthermore, a recent discontinuation of Shur-Clens® Skin Wound Cleanser1 (a wound cleansing solution consisting of the surfactant poloxamer 188) has prompted the search for a suitable substitute for many providers. The purpose of this study is to directly compare five lubricants (including a novel surgical lubricant-based solution) to select a preferred agent. Four practitioners blindly tested five lubricants while harvesting a split-thickness skin graft on a porcine skin model (glycerin, mineral oil, saline, poloxamer 188, and a novel lubricant solution created with surgical lube and sterile water). The results were recorded on a Likert scale where 1 indicated poor performance and 5 indicated excellent performance. Data were pooled, and means were compared with analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test. The cost of each lubricating solution was also reported. Mean scores for each of the solutions were as follows: dry control = 1.1 ± 0.1; glycerin = 2.62 ± 1.02, saline = 3.88 ± 0.81, mineral oil = 3.75 ± 1.00, novel water-based lubricant solution = 4.63 ± 0.71, and poloxamer 188 = 3.88 ± 0.81. All solutions were superior to dry control (P < .01). Glycerin was noted to have statistically lower scores than all of the other solutions (P < .01). The novel water-based surgical lubricant solution had significantly higher mean scores than both glycerin (P < .01) and mineral oil (P < .05). Each solution was compared according to dollars per 100cc with glycerin and Shur-Clens® representing the most expensive options at almost $3/100cc and saline the least expensive at less than $0.15/100cc. In a porcine skin model, the novel water-based surgical lubricant solution had the best performance. It was statistically superior to glycerin and mineral oil and was also found to be the most cost-effective option in terms of overall performance compared with relative cost. Glycerin had the worst performance with statistically lower scores than all other solutions. Glycerin was also found to be the least cost-effective due to a large discrepancy between high cost and low overall performance. Saline performed better than expected. These results may be skewed due to the inherently greasy nature of the butcher shop porcine skin, creating limitations and decreasing the fidelity of the model. In a search for the "ideal" lubricant, other models should be further studied.
Asunto(s)
Lubricantes/química , Lubricantes/economía , Poloxámero/química , Trasplante de Piel/métodos , Recolección de Tejidos y Órganos/métodos , Análisis de Varianza , Animales , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Geles/química , Glicerol/química , Rechazo de Injerto , Supervivencia de Injerto , Humanos , Aceite Mineral/química , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , PorcinosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Diagnosing the extremes of superficial burns and full-thickness burns is straightforward. It is in the middle ground of partial-thickness burns where the diagnostic difficulties emerge; it can take up to 3 to 5 days for signs of healing to appear. We hypothesize that cooling partial-thickness burns and tracking the rate of rewarming will immediately reflect the condition of the burn: shallow partial-thickness burns that retain cell health and blood flow will rewarm rapidly, and deeper burns with damaged microvessels will rewarm slowly. STUDY DESIGN: We enrolled 16 patients with isolated, partial-thickness burns on their extremities who were diagnosed as indeterminate by our burn surgeon. Within 24 hours after presentation, room-temperature saline was poured over the burn as a cooling challenge. An infrared camera that was sensitive to body temperature produced false-color images showing pixel-by-pixel temperatures. A time-lapse recording from the infrared camera images taken as the burn rewarmed produced a time-temperature curve that reflected the kinetics of rewarming. The outcomes variable was whether or not the patient received a skin graft, which was determined 72 hours after presentation. RESULTS: The method correctly predicted whether or not the patient required a skin graft. CONCLUSIONS: Here we report a new technique that permits determination of wound viability much earlier than clinical examination. Due to the simplicity of the method, non-experts can successfully perform the technique on the first day of the burn and make the correct diagnosis and decision to graft or not to graft.
Asunto(s)
Quemaduras/diagnóstico , Termografía/métodos , Adulto , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Rayos Infrarrojos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Selección de Paciente , Piel/irrigación sanguínea , Trasplante de Piel , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) contain lithium batteries that have been known to explode and/or cause fires that have resulted in burn injury. The purpose of this article is to present a case study, review injuries caused by e-cigarettes, and present a novel classification system from the newly emerging patterns of burns. A case study was presented and online media reports for e-cigarette burns were queried with search terms "e-cigarette burns" and "electronic cigarette burns." The reports and injury patterns were tabulated. Analysis was then performed to create a novel classification system based on the distinct injury patterns seen in the study. Two patients were seen at our regional burn center after e-cigarette burns. One had an injury to his thigh and penis that required operative intervention after ignition of this device in his pocket. The second had a facial burn and corneal abrasions when the device exploded while he was inhaling vapor. The Internet search and case studies resulted in 26 cases for evaluation. The burn patterns were divided in direct injury from the device igniting and indirect injury when the device caused a house or car fire. A numerical classification was created: direct injury: type 1 (hand injury) 7 cases, type 2 (face injury) 8 cases, type 3 (waist/groin injury) 11 cases, and type 5a (inhalation injury from using device) 2 cases; indirect injury: type 4 (house fire injury) 7 cases and type 5b (inhalation injury from fire started by the device) 4 cases. Multiple e-cigarette injuries are occurring in the United States and distinct patterns of burns are emerging. The classification system developed in this article will aid in further study and future regulation of these dangerous devices.