Negative pressure wound therapy in burns: a prospective, randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Negative-pressure-wound-therapy (NPWT) has become a widely used tool for the coverage and active treatment of complex wounds, including burns. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT in acute burns of upper and lower extremities and to compare results to the standard-of-care (SOC) at our institution. METHODS: Patients that were admitted to our institution between May 2019 and November 2021 with burns on extremities between 0.5 % and 10 % of the total body surface area (%TBSA) were included and randomized to either NPWT or SOC (polyhexanide gel, fatty gauze, and cotton wool). Treatment was performed until complete wound healing. Patients that required skin grafts, received additional NPWT after grafting independent on the initial group allocation. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients suffering from burn injury between May 2019 and November 2021 were randomized into treatment with NPWT (n = 33) or SOC (n = 32); of these, 33 patients (NPWT) and 28 patients (SOC) had complete data sets and were included in the analysis. Both groups were similar regarding age (39.8 ± 13.7 vs. 44.8 ± 16.2 years,p = 0.192), total burn size (3.1 ± 2.3 vs. 3.4 ± 2.8 %TBSA,p = 0.721) and treated wound size (1.9 ± 1.2 vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 %TBSA,p = 0.138). We found no differences regarding healing time (11.0 ± 4.9 vs. 8.6 ± 3.8,p = 0.074, and significant differences in a number of dressing changes throughout the study (2.4 ± 1.5 vs 4.2 ± 1.9,p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis exhibited no statistically significant difference in the time to healing or skin grafting (p = 0.085) in NPWT group compared with SOC group. The median time to healing or skin grafting was 10(8-11) days for NPWT and 9(7-11) days for SOC. The hazard ratio for healing or skin graft was HR= 0.64(0.38-1.08). The results of the time-to-event analysis as well as the Kaplan-Meier curve on the PPS confirmed this result. We found no differences in secondary surgical operations 15.2 vs 21.4 % pain or functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of time to detect wound healing. We also found no difference regarding further operations for wound closure, pain and/or scarring. However, dressing changes were significantly less frequent for patients that were treated with NPWT, which may be a psychological and logistical advantage.

Enzymatic debridement in scalds is not as effective as in flame burns regarding additional eschar excision: A retrospective matched-control study.

OBJECTIVE: Enzymatic debridement of burn eschar became an accepted and widely used technique for burn wound treatment over the last years. However, this practice is not exempt from failure and recent experimental studies indicate that it may not be as efficient in scalds as in flame burns. METHODS: Patients that were admitted to the burn intensive care unit between June 2017 and February 2021 and received enzymatic debridement within the first 72 h after scald and flame burn were included. Patients with scald burns were matched regarding age, sex and per cent total body surface area (%TBSA) burned in a 1:2 ratio with patients presenting with flame burns. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with scald burns were matched with 36 with flame burns. After matching, both groups were similar in terms of age (flame burns 44.5 ± 21.1 years vs. scald 41.8 ± 22.6 years, p = 0.666), and %TBSA burned (11.0 ± 8.2% vs. 10.6 ± 9.6%, p = 0.851). Patients with scald burns significantly more often underwent further surgical eschar excision compared to controls (scald 16 (88.9%) vs. flame 19 (52.8%), p = 0.016). Length of stay per %TBSA was significantly longer in scald burns (scald 7.8 ± 9.2 days vs. flame 3.7 ± 3.8, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that enzymatic debridement may not be as effective in scalds as in flame burns. It was shown that patients with scalds and subsequent enzymatic debridement more frequently underwent additional surgical intervention and that the size of the transplanted area was larger compared to control. Moreover, those patients had a longer length of stay at the hospital per %TBSA burned.

The Use of Semi-Absorbable Mesh and its Impact on Donor-Site Morbidity and Patient-Reported Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of semi-absorbable mesh on donor-site morbidity and patient-reported outcomes in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients who had DIEP flap breast reconstruction in our department from July 2007 to March 2019. Patients were invited to a comparative follow-up visit and grouped according to donor-site closure: primary fascial closure (the no-mesh group) and fascial reinforcement with semi-absorbable mesh in a subfascial position (the mesh group). The primary outcome of interest was donor-site morbidity, including bulging, hernia formation and rectus abdominis muscle strength. We also surveyed, surgical site complications and patient-reported outcomes using Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale v2.0 and BREAST-Q© version 2.0. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients had received DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Eighty-five patients (44.5%) with 108 DIEP flaps (53 patients in the mesh group and 32 patients in the no-mesh group) were included in the study. The mean BMI of the patients was significantly higher in the mesh group (mesh group, 26.9 vs. no-mesh group, 25.0, with p = 0.03). The incidence of hernia was significantly reduced in the mesh group (mesh group, 2.8% vs. no-mesh group, 13.5%, with p = 0.03). The incidence of bulging and the extent of rectus abdominis muscle strength were similar for both groups. Operative surgical site complications were reduced in the mesh group (mesh group, 7.5% vs. no-mesh group, 18.8%). There was no difference in patients' physical well-being and satisfaction with the donor site between groups. Patient-reported scar outcome was significantly better in the no-mesh group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our novel method of donor-site closure with semi-absorbable mesh in a subfascial position for reinforcement of the anterior rectus fascia on the DIEP donor site is safe. It has no negative impact on surgical site complications and patient-reported outcomes, while reducing the incidence of hernias on the donor-site in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

ICF-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for complex regional pain syndrome of the hand: efficacy, long-term outcomes, and impact of therapy duration.

BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a rare but feared complication in hand surgery. Although multimodal therapy concepts are recommended, there is only low evidence on efficacy of such approaches. Furthermore, recommendations regarding therapy duration are lacking. Aim of this study was to validate the efficacy of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation concept for treatment of CRPS of the hand and to find correlations between therapy duration and outcome measures. METHODS: Patients with CRPS of the hand after occupational trauma that underwent an ICF-based rehabilitation program between 2010 and 2014 were included in this retrospective study. Besides demographic data, outcomes included pain (VAS), range of motion assessed by fingertip-to-palm-distance (PTPD) and fingernail-to-table-distance (FTTD) as well as strength in grip, 3-point pinch and lateral pinch. All measures were gathered at admission to and discharge from inpatient rehabilitation therapy as well as at follow-up. Statistical analysis included paired t-test, ANOVA and Pearson's correlation analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients with a mean age of 45 years were included in this study. Duration of rehabilitation therapy was 53 days on average. All outcomes improved significantly during rehabilitation therapy. Pain decreased from 6.4 to 2.2. PTPD of digit 2 to 5 improved from 2.5, 2.8, 2.6, and 2.3 cm to 1.3, 1.4, 1.2, and 1.1 cm, respectively. FTTD of digit 2 to 5 decreased from 1.5, 1.7, 1.5, and 1.6 cm to 0.6, 0.8, 0.7, and 0.7 cm, respectively. Strength ameliorated from 9.5, 3.7, 2.7 kg to 17.9, 5.6, 5.0 kg in grip, lateral pinch, and 3-point pinch, respectively. Improvement in range of motion significantly correlated with therapy duration. 54% of patients participated at follow-up after a mean of 7.5 months. Outcome measures at follow-up remained stable compared to discharge values without significant differences. CONCLUSION: The ICF-based rehabilitation concept is a reliable and durable treatment option for CRPS of the hand. Range of motion improved continuously with therapy duration and thus may serve as an indicator for optimum length of therapy.