From Admission to Discharge-A Total Friction Burn Review from a Single Institution.

While most friction burns are adequately managed in an outpatient setting, many may require hospital admission, operative excision, and extended care. To this day, there is a wide variance in friction burn management. Our goal is to review the etiology, management, and outcomes of such burns warranting hospitalization. We conducted a retrospective review of all friction burns admitted to a single, American Burn Association-verified burn center from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. A total of 28 (34%) patients required surgery for their friction burns and 15 (18%) ultimately required a split-thickness skin graft. The mean number of operations was 2.4 (95% CI 1.6-3.1). Overall, the operative group was younger (29.9 vs 38.3 years, P = .026), more likely to have a concomitant traumatic brain injury (25% vs 7%, P = .027), and had a longer hospital length of stay (17.5 vs 3.9 days, P < .001). Both groups had a similar overall TBSA (8.5% vs 10.0%, P = .35), but the operative group had a larger surface area comprised of third-degree burns (3.05% vs 0.2%, P < .001). Overall, friction burns resulting in hospital admission are associated with high-energy traumatic mechanisms and concomitant injuries. Patients who need operative intervention for their burns typically require multiple procedures often culminating in a split-thickness skin graft. While non-operative management of friction burns with topical agents has been found to be successful, patients with higher injury severity scores should be monitored very closely as they may require surgical excision.

The Perception of Surgery Program Directors of Residency Applicants From Longitudinal Integrated Curriculum Medical Schools: A Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery Members.

Research statement This study explores whether longitudinal integrated clerkship (LIC) students are competitive general surgery applicants and if they are perceived as adequately prepared for general surgery residency compared to traditional block rotation (BR) students. Background/relevance of the study There is increasing interest in LIC models of clinical education versus BR models. LIC students have been shown to perform similarly on examinations to BR students. However, while LICs seem well suited for students pursuing primary care specialties, little is known about how this approach impacts clinical education for surgery. Design and methods An electronic survey was prepared and approved by the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS) and our university's institutional review board (IRB). Ten multiple-choice questions were administered along with an option for narrative comments. Surveys were sent over a one-month period to members of APDS Listserv. Returned emails were de-identified, and the results were tabulated. Results From 43 responses, the majority identified as program directors (PDs) (65%) and reported being somewhat familiar or very familiar with LICs (90%). When asked about the statement "LIC students are prepared for surgical residency," 22% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed." When asked "How would you rank a LIC prospective applicant in comparison to a BR student?" 35% responded that they would rank the LIC student lower or not at all. Of the respondents, 47% reported that they have current residents who were LIC students. Most of these residents (65%) are graded as "average" for current performance. Conclusions The results suggest that medical students who are trained using LICs may be disadvantaged when applying to general surgery residencies. Interpretation is limited by the small number of respondents, and it only reflects the opinions of active APDS Listserv members. Further study is needed to confirm these findings and elucidate the basis of perceived deficiencies in LICs. Students from these schools should be advised to obtain additional surgery experience.