RESUMO
Objective: To investigate the scientificity and feasibility of the ten-fold rehydration formula for emergency resuscitation of pediatric patients after extensive burns. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted. The total burn area of 30%-100% total body surface area (TBSA) and body weight of 6-50 kg in 433 pediatric patients (250 males and 183 females, aged 3 months to 14 years) with extensive burns who met the inclusion criteria and admitted to the burn departments of 72 Class A tertiary hospitals were collected. The 6 319 pairs of simulated data were constructed after pairing each body weight of 6-50 kg (programmed in steps of 0.5 kg) and each total burn area of 30%-100% TBSA (programmed in steps of 1%TBSA). They were put into three accepted pediatric rehydration formulae, namely the commonly used domestic pediatric rehydration formula for burn patients (hereinafter referred to as the domestic rehydration formula), the Galveston formula, and the Cincinnati formula, and the two rehydration formulae for pediatric emergency, namely the simplified resuscitation formula for emergency care of patients with extensive burns proposed by the World Health Organization's Technical Working Group on Burns (TWGB, hereinafter referred to as the TWGB formula) and the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula proposed by the author of this article--rehydration rate (mL/h)=body weight (kg) × 10 (mL·kg-1·h-1) to calculate the rehydration rate within 8 h post injury (hereinafter referred to as the rehydration rate). The range of the results of the 3 accepted pediatric rehydration formulae ±20% were regarded as the reasonable rehydration rate, and the accuracy rates of rehydration rate calculated using the two pediatric emergency rehydration formulae were compared. Using the maximum burn areas (55% and 85% TBSA) corresponding to the reasonable rehydration rate calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula at the body weight of 6 and 50 kg respectively, the total burn area of 30% to 100% TBSA was divided into 3 segments and the accuracy rates of the rehydration rate calculated using the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae in each segment were compared. When neither of the rehydration rates calculated by the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae was reasonable, the differences between the two rehydration rates were compared. The distribution of 433 pediatric patients in the 3 previous total burn area segments was counted and the accuracy rates of the rehydration rate calculated using the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae were calculated and compared. Data were statistically analyzed with McNemar test. Results: Substitution of 6 319 pairs of simulated data showed that the accuracy rates of the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula was 73.92% (4 671/6 319), which was significantly higher than 4.02% (254/6 319) of the TWGB formula (χ2=6 490.88,P<0.05). When the total burn area was 30%-55% and 56%-85% TBSA, the accuracy rates of the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula were 100% (2 314/2 314) and 88.28% (2 357/2 670), respectively, which were significantly higher than 10.98% (254/2 314) and 0 (0/2 670) of the TWGB formula (with χ2 values of 3 712.49 and 4 227.97, respectively, P<0.05); when the total burn area was 86%-100% TBSA, the accuracy rates of the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula and the TWGB formula were 0 (0/1 335). When the rehydration rates calculated by the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae were unreasonable, the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula were all higher than those of the TWGB formula. There were 93.07% (403/433), 5.77% (25/433), and 1.15% (5/433) patients in the 433 pediatric patients had total burn area of 30%-55%, 56%-85%, and 86%-100% TBSA, respectively, and the accuracy rate of the rehydration rate calculated using the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula was 97.69% (423/433), which was significantly higher than 0 (0/433) of the TWGB formula (χ2=826.90, P<0.05). Conclusions: The application of the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula to estimate the rehydration rate of pediatric patients after extensive burns is more accurate and convenient, superior to the TWGB formula, suitable for application by front-line healthcare workers that are not specialized in burns in pre-admission rescue of pediatric patients with extensive burns, and is worthy of promotion.