RSTNCOVID Burns: A multi-centre service evaluation and stakeholder survey of the impact of COVID-19 on burns care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As the UK entered the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service published consensus guidance to the UK burns services advising changes to the acute management of burns to allow the continuation of safe care while protecting limited hospital resources. We aimed to describe the demographics of burns service users, changes to clinical pathways and experiences of the burns team during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. All burns services in the UK were invited to participate in a national collaborative, trainee-led study supported by the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network. The study consisted of (1) a service evaluation of patients receiving burns treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) a multidisciplinary team survey. Analyses were descriptive and narrative depending on data types. Collaborators from 18 sites contributed data from burns MDT surveys and 512 patients. Patient demographics were consistent with typical burns patterns in the UK. The delayed presentation occurred in 20% of cases, with 24 patients developing complications. MDT surveys indicated substantial adaptations and challenges as a result of the pandemic. Access to theatres and critical care were limited, yet a comprehensive acute burns service was maintained. Telemedicine was utilised heavily to reduce patient footfall. Adaptations in the provision of burns care, including greater outpatient care and telemedicine, have emerged out of necessity with reported success. The impact of reduced scar therapy and psychological interventions for burns patients during the pandemic requires longer-term follow-up. Lessons from the UK experience can be used to strategise for future pandemics.

The impact and lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic on a UK Burns Centre.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted healthcare provision in the UK and burns services have had to adapt to ensure the continuity of a safe care. As we return to "normality" we reflect on lessons learnt from our response to this pandemic. A service evaluation was performed from patient notes between March 23rd and May 8th 2020 and an anonymous survey given to patients attending outpatient appointments. 258 patients were referred to our burns service and 148 patients completed the survey. Eleven burns were caused by treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Patients delayed seeking medical attention due to concern of catching COVID-19 (36% adults, 8% children). There was a delay in referral of 17 patients despite them fulfilling the referral criteria. Infection rates were higher following delayed presentation (21% vs 6%). The majority of burns were managed conservatively (237/258). Dressing changes were performed at home by 32% of patients. The outreach team treated 22 patients. During the pandemic telemedicine has improved the efficiency of outpatient burn care and outreach nurses have enabled treatment of vulnerable patients. More must be done to raise public awareness of preventable causes of burn injury and to reassure them to seek help when burns occur.

Lymphaticovenular anastomosis improves quality of life and limb volume in patients with secondary lymphedema after breast cancer treatment.

Secondary lymphedema is a common side effect of breast cancer treatment, with significant impact on patients' physical and psychological well-being. Conservative therapies are the gold standard treatment, however surgical options are becoming more popular. Lymphaticovenular anastomosis (LVA) is a supermicrosurgical procedure that aims to restore lymphatic flow by anastomosing damaged lymphatics to subcutaneous venules. We aimed to assess the effects of LVA on patients' limb volume and quality of life. Pre- and postoperative limb volumes and LYMQOL scores were collected for patients undergoing LVA for lymphedema secondary to breast cancer. Thirty-seven patients underwent LVA. A significant reduction was seen in median excess limb volume postoperatively (13.3%-6.6%, P < 0.005), with volumetric improvement seen in 78% of patients. Thirteen patients were able to discontinue compression garment use. Eighty-six percent of patients reported improved quality of life postoperatively with median LYMQOL score increasing from 90 to 104 points (P < 0.005). LVA is a minimally invasive surgical option for patients with early stage lymphedema. It can lead to significant volumetric improvements and in select patients, freedom from compression therapy. LVA can also lead to significant improvements in quality of life, in particular patients' mood and perception of their appearance.

Lymphaticovenular anastomosis in the treatment of secondary lymphoedema of the legs after cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: As survival from cancer continues to improve, greater importance is placed on quality of life after surgery. Lymphoedema is a common and disabling complication of cancer treatment. Lymphaticovenular anastomosis (LVA) is a supermicrosurgical treatment option for lower limb lymphoedema. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of LVA in reducing limb volume and its effect on quality of life of patients with secondary leg lymphoedema following treatment for cancer, including gynaecological cancers. METHODS: Limb volume and patient rated quality of life were collected prospectively pre-operatively and at every post-operative appointment in this case series. All patients presenting to the clinic with stable or progressive leg lymphoedema despite conservative therapy who were suitable candidates for LVA over a three-year period were included. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were treated with LVA, 19 for unilateral lymphoedema and 10 for bilateral. In unilateral cases median limb excess volume reduced from 27% to 16% post-operatively (p < 0.005) and in bilateral cases a median 8% reduction in absolute limb volume was achieved. Significant improvement in patient-reported quality of life was demonstrated, as measured by the LYMQOL: 23% improvement in unilateral and 14% improvement in bilateral patients (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with early stage lymphoedema secondary to cancer treatment, LVA offers a minimally invasive surgical option that can achieve significant volumetric and quality of life improvements.

A Comparative Study of the Aesthetic Outcome of Two Techniques for Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip Repair.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip repair aims to create symmetric nasolabial morphology with minimal scarring. Poor aesthetic outcomes may have damaging psychosocial implications. Determining the optimal method of recreating lip symmetry is a major goal of applied cleft clinical research. This study aims to determine whether subjective assessment could differentiate aesthetic outcome between two surgeons who use two different surgical techniques for unilateral cleft lip repair. METHODS: Surgeon A uses a modified rotation-advancement technique incorporating a supra-white roll flap and Noordhoff-style vermilion flap. Surgeon B uses an upper and lower triangle technique. Neither surgeon used presurgical orthopedics. Five-year postoperative frontal photographs (cropped according to the Asher-McDade aesthetic index) were analyzed by a panel of 40 blinded surgical and lay reviewers using a five-point Likert scale. The assessments were repeated after a 2-week interval to assess intrarater reliability. RESULTS: Thirty-nine consecutive complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients were assessed for each surgeon. The mean Likert score for surgical/lay assessors was 3.07/3.00 for surgeon A and 2.67/2.61 for surgeon B. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The interrater reliability was excellent and the intrarater reliability was fair. There was good correlation between lay and surgical assessors. CONCLUSION: Subjective assessment of clinical photography provides a reliable method of differentiating aesthetic outcome after unilateral cleft lip repair and presents a rapid and straightforward clinically relevant method of comparing surgical outcomes.