Air-fluidized therapy in the treatment of severe burns: A retrospective study from a burn intensive care unit in Austria.

INTRODUCTION: Air-fluidized therapy (AFT) has long been used in the treatment of severe burns. In patients with extensive burns involving the posterior trunk, we aim to keep affected posterior areas dry and to postpone their treatment, initially applying available split-thickness skin grafts in functionally more important regions. We retrospectively assessed the impact of AFT on the survival of patients treated in the burn intensive care unit (ICU) of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, between 2003 and 2016. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included patients aged ≥18 years with burned total body surface area (TBSA) ≥20% and IIb-III° thermal injuries on the posterior trunk who received AFT. Survival rates were compared with those predicted by the abbreviated burn severity index (ABSI). Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventy-five of 110 patients with posterior trunk burns received AFT. Their survival rate exceeded that predicted by the ABSI score (mean ABSI, 10.0 ± 2.0; 73.3% (95% CI: 62-83%) survival rate vs. 20-40% predicted; p < 0.0001); no such difference was observed in the non-AFT group (mean, 8.8 ± 1.9; 65.7% (95% CI: 48-81%) survival rate vs. 50-70% predicted). Patients receiving AFT had significantly greater TBSA (median, 50% (35-60) vs. 30% (25-45) and longer ICU stays (median, 63 (36-92) vs. 18 (9-52) days; both p < 0.0001). Fifty-one (68.0%) patients in the AFT group and 26 (74.3%) patients in the non-AFT group underwent posterior trunk surgery (p = 0.66) a median of 16 (10-26) and 5 (2.5-9.5) days, respectively, after admission (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving AFT had significantly better survival than predicted by ABSI score in contrast to patients not receiving AFT although burn injuries in this group were more severe (greater TBSA, higher ABSI). As intensive care was similar in these groups aside from AFT, the better survival could be attributed to this additional therapy.

Use of alternatives to air-fluidized support surfaces in the care of complex wounds in postflap and postgraft patients.

Air-fluidized support surface therapy has many drawbacks, such as dehydration, in an already difficult recovery for those wound patients who have undergone flap and graft surgery. In addition, patient care and handling are also problematic. Patients complain of discomfort, and the instability of the surface interferes with patient stability in side lying and semi-Fowler's positions. Alternative support surfaces can be considered for postflap or postgraft patients. Such technologies as alternating pressure, low-air-loss, and therapeutic nonpowered, advanced, and lateral rotation surfaces are widely used for pressure management in high-risk patients and those with existing pressure ulcers. These surfaces must be used within a total pressure ulcer management program that includes frequent turning and repositioning, skin and ulcer care according to evidence-based protocols, patient and caregiver instruction, nutrition, and offloading and positioning. The proposed recommendations require more research on the relative effectiveness of less expensive and more user-friendly support surfaces such as low-air-loss and nonpowered advanced support surfaces and is necessary in order to conclusively recommend one type of surface over another. However, at this time the available clinical studies and opinions remain positive.