A systematic review on surgical and nonsurgical debridement techniques of burn wounds.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a complete overview of all burn debridement techniques studied in recent literature and to find the best evidence with regard to efficiency and safety. METHOD: A systematic review was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier. All studies published from 1990 onwards, on the efficiency and/or safety of burn debridement techniques in patients with thermal burn injuries of any age, were included. Primary outcomes were time to complete wound healing and time to complete debridement. Randomized trials were critically appraised. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies, including four randomized clinical trials, were included. Time to wound healing in the conventional tangential excision (seven studies), hydrosurgery (eight studies), enzymatic debridement (eleven studies), and shock waves group (one study) ranged from 13-30, 11-13, 19-33, and 16 days, respectively. Time to complete debridement ranged from 5-10, 4-23, and 1-9 days, respectively. Furthermore, secondary outcomes (including grafting, mortality, and scar quality) were compared between the debridement categories. CONCLUSION: Convincing evidence in favor of any of these techniques is currently lacking. Future studies regarding (new) debridement techniques need to use standardized and validated outcome measurement tools to allow improved standardization and comparisons across studies.

Application of hydrosurgery for burn wound debridement: An 8-year cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: During the last decade, the Versajet™ hydrosurgery system has become popular as a tool for tangential excision in burn surgery. Although hydrosurgery is thought to be a more precise and controlled manner for burn debridement prior to skin grafting, burn specialists decide individually whether hydrosurgery should be applied in a specific patient or not. The aim of this study was to gain insight in which patients hydrosurgery is used in specialized burn care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in all patients admitted to a Dutch burn centre between 2009 and 2016. All patients with burns that underwent surgical debridement were included. Data were collected using the national Dutch Burn Repository R3. RESULTS: Data of 2113 eligible patients were assessed. These patients were treated with hydrosurgical debridement (23.9%), conventional debridement (47.7%) or a combination of these techniques (28.3%). Independent predictors for the use of hydrosurgery were a younger age, scalds, a larger percentage of total body surface area (TBSA) burned, head and neck burns and arm burns. Differences in surgical management and clinical outcome were found between the three groups. CONCLUSION: The use of hydrosurgery for burn wound debridement prior to skin grafting is substantial. Independent predictors for the use of hydrosurgery were mainly burn related and consisted of a younger age, scalds, a larger TBSA burned, and burns on irregularly contoured body areas. Randomized studies addressing scar quality are needed to open new perspectives on the potential benefits of hydrosurgical burn wound debridement.

Follow-up in patients with a burn-related emergency department visit: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Data on epidemiology, costs, and outcomes of burn-related injuries presenting at emergency departments (EDs) are scarce. To obtain such information, a questionnaire study with an adequate response rate is imperative. There is evidence that optimized strategies can increase patient participation. However, it is unclear whether this applies to burn patients in an ED setting. The objective of this feasibility study was to optimize and evaluate patient recruitment strategy and follow-up methods in patients with burn injuries presenting at EDs. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study with a 6-month follow-up, patients with burn-related injuries attending two large EDs during a 3-month study period were included. Eligible patients were quasi-randomly allocated to a standard or optimized recruitment strategy by week of the ED visit. The standard recruitment strategy consisted of an invitation letter to participate, an informed consent form, a questionnaire, and a franked return envelope. The optimized recruitment strategy was complemented by a stamped returned envelope, monetary incentive, sending a second copy of the questionnaire, and a reminder by telephone in non-responders. Response rates were calculated, and questionnaires were used to assess treatment, costs, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included of which 85 were eligible for the follow-up study. There was a higher response rate at 2 months in the optimized versus the standard recruitment strategy (43.6% vs. 20.0%; OR = 3.1 (95% CI 1.1-8.8)), although overall response is low. Non-response analyses showed no significant differences in patient, burn injury or treatment characteristics between responders versus non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that response rates can be increased with an optimized, but more labor-intensive recruitment strategy, although further optimization of recruitment and follow-up is needed. It is feasible to assess epidemiology, treatment, and costs after burn-related ED contacts.

Predictive validity of short term scar quality on final burn scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in patients with minor to moderate burn severity.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the predictive validity of the Patient and Observer Assessment Scale (POSAS), in order to determine whether it can be used to predict final scar quality. METHODS: Patients with a maximum TBSA burned of 20% who were treated in a Dutch burn center and participated in two scar assessments at 3 months and >18 months post-burn were included. Scar quality assessment consisted of the POSAS, Dermaspectrometer® (color) and Cutometer® (elasticity). Predictive validity was determined in three ways: (1) the discriminative ability to distinguish good from reduced long term scar quality, (2) correlations between POSAS items score at the two subsequent assessments and (3) linear regression was conducted to identify POSAS items as independent predictors. Additionally, reliability, construct validity and interpretability were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients were included with a mean TBSA burned of 5.2% (±4.5). The ability of the Patient scale to discriminate between good and reduced long term scar quality was adequate with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.728 (CI 0.640-0.804), the ability of the Observer scale was good with an AUC of 0.854 (CI 0.781-0.911). Correlations between items scored T3 and T>18 were at least adequate. On item level, pain and stiffness (Patient) and pliability and relief (Observer) were identified as significant predictors for reduced long term scar quality. The POSAS was reliable, construct validity was adequate at three months but declined at >18 months. CONCLUSION: This study found that final scar quality can be adequately predicted by an early POSAS assessment at three months.

Return to work after specialised burn care: A two-year prospective follow-up study of the prevalence, predictors and related costs.

BACKGROUND: Burn injuries may cause long-term disability and work absence, and therefore result in high healthcare and productivity costs. Up to now, detailed information on return to work (RTW) and productivity costs after burns is lacking. AIMS: The aim of this study was to accurately assess RTW after burn injuries, to identify predictors of absenteeism and to calculate healthcare and productivity costs from a societal perspective. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in the burn centre of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, including all admitted working-age patients from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012. At 3, 12 and 24 months post-burn, patients were sent a questionnaire: including the Work and Medical Consumption questionnaire for the assessment of work absence and medical consumption and the EQ-5D-3L plus a cognitive dimension to assess post-burn and pre-burn quality of life (QOL). Cost analyses were from a societal perspective according the micro-costing method and the friction cost method was applied for the calculation of productivity loss. Univariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of absenteeism at three months. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included in the study with a mean total body surface area (TBSA) burned of 8% (median 4%). 66 respondents were pre-employed, at 3 months 70% was back at work, at 12 months 92% and 8% had not returned to work at time of final follow-up at 24 months. Predictors of absenteeism at 3 months were: TBSA, length of stay, ICU-admission and surgery. Mean costs related to loss in productivity were €11.916 [95% CI 8.930-14.902] and accounted for 30% of total costs in pre-employed respondents in the first two years. CONCLUSION: This two-year follow-up study demonstrates that burn injuries cause substantial and prolonged productivity loss amongst burn survivors with mixed burn severity. This absenteeism contributes to already high societal costs of burn injuries. Predictors of absenteeism found in this study were primarily fixed patient and treatment related factors, future studies should focus on modifiable factors, in order to improve RTW outcomes. Also, more attention in the rehabilitation trajectory is needed to optimally support RTW in burn survivors.