Comparison of comparable scald and contact burns in a porcine model: A preliminary report.

Whether the depth and healing of scalds and contact burns are similar is controversial. Due to water's greater heat capacity, we hypothesized that when exposed to similar temperatures and durations of exposure, burns caused by hot water would be deeper than those caused by contact with hot metal. Forty standardized burns were created in two anesthetized female domestic pigs using a brass bar or circulating heated water. In one pig, the temperature was kept constant (95°C) while the duration of exposure varied (5, 10, 15 seconds) In the second pig, the exposure time was kept constant (10 seconds) while the temperature of exposure varied (70°C, 80°C, 98°C). Periodic punch biopsies were taken to determine burn depth immediately after injury, percentage burns reepithelialized within 21 days, and depth of scar at 28 days. The analysis was performed using analysis of variance. When the temperature was held constant, duration of exposure (5, 10, and 15 seconds) was associated with scar depth (2.1 vs 3.8 vs 5.0 mm, respectively, P = 0.001) but not with burn depth (2.0 vs 2.2 vs 2.3 mm, respectively, P = 0.10). When exposure duration was held constant, temperature (70°C, 80°C, 98°C) was associated with scar depth (0.6 vs 1.7 vs 3.6, P < 0.001) but not with burn depth (1.2 vs 1.5 vs 1.7 mm, respectively, P = 0.21). Burn depths were greater for scald than contact burns although not significantly greater. After controlling for temperature, the difference in scar depth between scalds and contact burns was statistically significant (marginal means 3.0 for contact burns, 4.3 for scalds, P = 0.008). We conclude that burns created in swine with circulating hot water result in deeper scars than those created by contact with a brass bar when controlling for temperature and duration of exposure.

Comparison of a topical surfactant and a topical antibiotic in the rat comb burn model.

BACKGROUND: Burn injury progression in the secondary zone of ischemia is common leading to delayed healing and increased scarring. We hypothesized that a topical surfactant, would reduce burn injury progression in a validated rat comb burn model compared with topical antibiotic ointment. METHODS: We created 40 comb burns on 20 rats which were randomized to daily topical application of the surfactant or a triple antibiotic ointment. The comb burns consisted of 4 full thickness burns with 3 unburned interspaces between the 4 burns. These unburned interspaces represented the zone of ischemia, and when left untreated, generally progress to full thickness necrosis within several days. Comb burns were assessed daily for the presence of gross necrosis of the interspaces. At 7 days the comb burns were excised and blindly evaluated for the presence of histological evidence of necrosis. The study had 80% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentages of necrotic interspaces on day 7. RESULTS: There were no differences in the percentages of histologically necrotic interspaces at 7 days in burns treated with the surfactant or antibiotic ointment (85% [95%CI, 74 to 92] vs. 75% [95%CI, 63 to 84]; mean difference 10% [95%CI -4 to 24]). There were also no between group differences in the percentages of grossly necrotic interspaces on any of the seven days of the experiment. The surfactant remained intact and adherent while the antibiotic had been absorbed at each daily dressing change. CONCLUSIONS: A topical surfactant did not reduce injury progression in the rat comb burn model when compared with antibiotic ointment. The surfactant was more durable than the antibiotic ointment.