RESUMEN
Social media offers a readily available, cost-effective way for medical experts to disseminate knowledge and shape public health outcomes but also allows for the spread of misinformation. This study aims to analyze burn-related material on social media by creator, content type, and engagement. Facebook, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) were queried with the following search terms: "burn," "burn injury," "burn recovery," and "burn treatment." Identified accounts were then manually screened for relevance. Year of creation and engagement metrics were collected. Accounts were categorized by content and creator type. Data was reported using descriptive statistics and visualized graphically to explore trends. Our search yielded 434 profiles, 234 of which met inclusion criteria. TikTok had the most engagement at a median of 43,500 followers per account, with 38.3% of accounts focusing on individual experiences of burn survivors primarily on personal accounts (48.3%). In contrast, content on Facebook was related to promotion of medical services (36.9%), where the most represented creator type was medical centers (33.6%). Nonprofits made up 40.4% of accounts on Twitter/X and more than a third of the content focused on patient advocacy, support, or burn prevention (36.5%). Important topics like burn education, prevention, and social support are lacking on major social media platforms. Engagement from burn care organizations and burn experts on social media is necessary. The findings of this study may guide advocates in the burn community on where and how to disseminate information in social media.
RESUMEN
While patient education materials (PEMs) across various specialties have been reported as being too difficult to read, the quality and understandability of PEMs related to scar management have not been assessed. In this study, we report the breadth of scar management interventions and readability of online PEMs authored by academic societies and university hospitals. Websites of academic medical societies and university hospitals with scar revision PEMs were assessed for relevance. PEM readability was assessed via Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fox Index scores. Understandability and actionability were evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A total of 26 scar revision PEMs met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly mentioned scar management interventions were scar revision surgery (73%) and laser scar revision (70%), with minimal emphasis on non-invasive methods like scar massage or sun protection. Readability analysis yielded a mean Flesch reading level of 8.8. Overall PEMAT understandability of online scar treatment PEMs was moderate, with a median of 76.0% (IQR 71.5 - 80.5%). PEMs from all specialties and institution types were lacking in actionability, with median actionability of 40.8% (IQR 38.1-60.0%). Online scar revision PEMs included a wide breadth of scar management interventions, however the least costly interventions of sun protection and scar massage were not commonly included. PEMs for scar management could be improved by simplifying language, including visual aids, and including checklists or specific steps patients can take to take action on scar management interventions.
RESUMEN
There is no consensus for the optimal management of diabetic foot burn injuries. Here, we systematically identify studies reporting on diabetic foot burns and evaluate outcomes among patients managed operatively versus non-operatively. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched. Screening was performed by independent reviewers. Primary research studies with English full texts published between 1980 to 2023 that discussed outcomes of foot burns in adults with diabetes were included and critically appraised using validated tools. Results are presented using descriptive statistics of aggregated data. The search yielded 2,402 non-duplicate papers, of which 35 met inclusion criteria. Nine papers were included for meta-analysis, including seven retrospective comparative analyses, one cross-sectional study, and one retrospective chart review. There were 1798 diabetic foot burn patients. Mean age was 58.2 years (SD 4.12) and 73.1% (n = 1,314) were male. A total of 15.7% (n = 283) of patients were surgically managed, including debridement (3.7%, n = 66), grafting (8.2%, n = 147), flap (0.2%, n = 3), and primary amputation (7.1%, n = 127). Secondary amputation rate, defined as amputation following initial surgery, was 4.9%, (n = 14). The overall amputation rate was 7.8% (n = 141). Other complications included infection (4.0%, n = 72), osteomyelitis (1.9%, n = 34), and graft failure (8.2%, n = 12). One study reported functional status at last visit. Diabetic foot burns are highly morbid. The surgical management of these complex injuries is high risk, as amputation results in poorer quality of life and functional outcomes.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Data after enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with same-day discharge in breast reconstruction is limited. This study evaluates early postoperative outcomes after same-day discharge in tissue-expander immediate breast reconstruction (TE-IBR) and oncoplastic breast reconstruction. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of TE-IBR patients from 2017 to 2022 and oncoplastic breast reconstruction patients from 2014 to 2022 was performed. Patients were divided by procedure and recovery pathway: group 1 (TE-IBR, overnight admission), group 2 (TE-IBR, ERAS), group 3 (oncoplastic, overnight admission), and group 4 (oncoplastic, ERAS). Groups 1 and 2 were subdivided by implant location: groups 1a (prepectoral) and 1b (subpectoral), and groups 2a (prepectoral) and 2b (subpectoral). Demographics, comorbidities, complications, and reoperations were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 160 TE-IBR patients (group 1, 91; group 2, 69) and 60 oncoplastic breast reconstruction patients (group 3, 8; group 4, 52) were included. Of the 160 TE-IBR patients, 73 underwent prepectoral reconstruction (group 1a, 25; group 2a, 48), and 87 underwent subpectoral reconstruction (group 1b, 66; group 2b, 21). There were no differences in demographics and comorbidities between groups 1 and 2. Group 3 had a higher average body mass index than group 4 (37.6 vs 32.2, P = 0.022). There was no significant difference between groups 1a and 2a or between groups 1b and 2b in rates of for rates of infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, fat necrosis, implant loss, or reoperations. Group 3 and group 4 showed no significant difference in any complications or in reoperations. Notably, no patients in same-day discharge groups required unplanned hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Many surgical subspecialities have successfully adopted ERAS protocols into their patient care and have shown both its safety and feasibility. Our research shows that same-day discharge in both TE-IBR and oncoplastic breast reconstruction does not increase risk for major complications or reoperations.
