The Burden of Burns: An Analysis of Public Health Measures.

Accurate analysis of injuries is paramount when allocating resources for prevention, research, education, and legislation. As burn mortality has improved over recent decades, the societal burden of burn injuries has grown ambiguous to the public while a scarcity of investigational funding for survivors has led to a gap in understanding lifelong sequela. We aim to compare national references reporting the incidence of burn injuries in the United States. The American Burn Association Burn Injury Summary Report (ABA-BISR), American Burn Association Fact Sheet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting (WISQARS) database, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics' National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), National Inpatient Sample (NIS), National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), and commercially available claims databases were queried for 2020 or the most recent data available. The BISR estimated 30,135 burn admissions in 2022. The 2016 ABA Fact Sheet reported 486,000 burns presented to US emergency departments (ED). In 2020, CDC's WISQARS database reported 3,529 fatal, and 287,926 non-fatal, burn injuries. The 2020 NEDS reported 438,185 ED visits while the 2020 NIS estimated 103,235 inpatients. The NHAMCS reported 359,000 ED visits for burn injuries in the same period, and an analysis of ICD-10 burn codes demonstrated over 698,555 claims. Our study demonstrates a large variability in the reported incidence of burn injury by the ABA, CDC, national samples, and claims databases. Per our analyses, we estimate that 600,000 individuals annually suffer a burn injury which merits emergent care in the United States.

Autologous Skin Cell Suspension for Full-Thickness Skin Defect Reconstruction: Current Evidence and Health Economic Expectations.

Despite differing etiologies, acute thermal burn injuries and full-thickness (FT) skin defects are associated with similar therapeutic challenges. When not amenable to primary or secondary closure, the conventional standard of care (SoC) treatment for these wound types is split-thickness skin grafting (STSG). This invasive procedure requires adequate availability of donor skin and is associated with donor site morbidity, high healthcare resource use (HCRU), and costs related to prolonged hospitalization. As such, treatment options that can facilitate effective healing and donor skin sparing have been highly anticipated. The RECELL® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device facilitates preparation of an autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) for the treatment of acute thermal burns and FT skin defects. In initial clinical trials, the approach showed superior donor skin-sparing benefits and comparable wound healing to SoC STSG among patients with acute thermal burn injuries. These findings led to approval of RECELL for this indication by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2018. Subsequent clinical evaluation in non-thermal FT skin wounds showed that RECELL, when used in combination with widely meshed STSG, provides donor skin-sparing advantages and comparable healing outcomes compared with SoC STSG. As a result, the device received FDA approval in June of 2023 for treatment of FT skin defects caused by traumatic avulsion or surgical excision or resection. Given that health economic advantages have been demonstrated for RECELL ± STSG versus STSG alone when used for burn therapy, it is prudent to examine similarities in the burn and FT skin defect treatment pathways to forecast the potential health economic advantages for RECELL when used in FT skin defects. This article discusses the parallels between the two indications, the clinical outcomes reported for RECELL, and the HCRU and cost benefits that may be anticipated with use of the device for non-thermal FT skin defects.

Iterative refinement of a histologic algorithm for burn depth categorization based on 798 consecutive burn wound biopsies.

INTRODUCTION: Our group previously reported a burn biopsy algorithm (BBA-V1) for categorizing burn wound depth. Here, we sought to promulgate a newer, simpler version of the BBA (BBA-V2). METHODS: Burn wounds undergoing excision underwent 4 mm biopsies procured every 25 cm2. Serial still photos were obtained at enrollment and at excision intraoperatively. Burn wounds assessed as likely to heal by 21 days were imaged within 72 h of injury and at 21 days. A sample of 798 burn wound biopsies were classified by both BBAV1 and BBAV2 algorithms. For nonoperative burn wounds, the proportion of healing versus nonhealing pixels at 21 days after injury were compared. RESULTS: The 798 biopsies were classified by BBAV1 as 24% SPT, 47% DPT, 28% FT and by BBAV2 as 3% SPT, 67% DPT, and 30% FT (p < 0.0001). Overall, the proportion of biopsies whose wound reclassification changed from a nonoperative to operative pathway was 21% (95% CI: 18-24%). Nonoperative wounds judged at injury as being SPT contained 12.8 million pixels. Repeat 21-day imaging revealed 11.3 million healed pixels (accuracy = 89.6% (95% CI: 89.59-89.62)). CONCLUSIONS: BBA-V2 was associated with a significantly higher concordance with visual assessment for burn wounds clinically judged as deep partial and full thickness.

Development of the national injury resource database (NIRD).

INTRODUCTION: Lack of an accurate, publicly available database of burn/trauma resources creates challenges in providing burn care. In response to this gap, our group developed the National Injury Resource Database (NIRD), a comprehensive database of all US burn centers (BC) and trauma centers (TC) and their capabilities. METHODS: Lists of all national BC and TC were obtained from the American Burn Association (ABA), the American College of Surgeons, and every state department of health. Data was cross-checked and included BC/TC were linked with a 7-digit identification number using the American Hospital Association Quick Search guide. Each center's resources and verification status were validated with electronic or telephonic communications. RESULTS: The final database includes 135 BC and 617 TC, of which 18 are BC-only, 500 are TC-only, and 117 are combined BC/TC. ABA-verified BC (n = 76) are only found in Washington DC and 31 states, and 8 states have no BC. In the last 10 years, a net increase of 7 burn centers was found nationally. The ABA's online BC directory is outdated. CONCLUSIONS: NIRD represents the only up-to-date, comprehensive listing of BC and TC in existence. It categorizes all currently operating BC and TC across myriad classifications of designation and capabilities.

Clinical Investigation of a Rapid Non-invasive Multispectral Imaging Device Utilizing an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Improved Burn Assessment.

Currently, the incorrect judgment of burn depth remains common even among experienced surgeons. Contributing to this problem are change in burn appearance throughout the first week requiring periodic evaluation until a confident diagnosis can be made. To overcome these issues, we investigated the feasibility of an artificial intelligence algorithm trained with multispectral images of burn injuries to predict burn depth rapidly and accurately, including burns of indeterminate depth. In a feasibility study, 406 multispectral images of burns were collected within 72 hours of injury and then serially for up to 7 days. Simultaneously, the subject's clinician indicated whether the burn was of indeterminate depth. The final depth of burned regions within images were agreed upon by a panel of burn practitioners using biopsies and 21-day healing assessments as reference standards. We compared three convolutional neural network architectures and an ensemble in their capability to automatically highlight areas of nonhealing burn regions within images. The top algorithm was the ensemble with 81% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 97% positive predictive value (PPV). Its sensitivity and PPV were found to increase in a sigmoid shape during the first week postburn, with the inflection point at day 2.5. Additionally, when burns were labeled as indeterminate, the algorithm's sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value were: 70%, 100%, 97%, and 100%. These results suggest multispectral imaging combined with artificial intelligence is feasible for detecting nonhealing burn tissue and could play an important role in aiding the earlier diagnosis of indeterminate burns.

Development of Prepositioned Burn Care-specific Disaster Resources for a Burn Mass Casualty Incident.

Disaster preparedness for a burn mass casualty incident (BMCI) must consider the needs of the first responders and community hospitals, who may be the first to receive those patients. Developing a more comprehensive statewide burn disaster program includes meeting with regional healthcare coalitions (HCCs) to identify gaps in care. Quarterly HCC meetings, which link local hospitals, emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, and other interested parties, are held around the state. We rely on the HCC's regional meetings to serve as a platform for conducting focus group research to identify gaps specific to a BMCI and to inform strategy development. One of the deficiencies identified, particularly in rural areas that infrequently manage burn injuries, was a lack of burn-specific wound care dressings that could support the initial response. Relying on this process, a consensus was created for equipment types and quantities, including a kit for storage. Furthermore, maintenance, supply replacement, and scene delivery processes were developed for these kits that could augment a BMCI response. The feedback from the focus groups reminded us that many systems report having infrequent opportunities to provide care for patients with burn injuries. In addition, several types of burn-specific dressings are expensive. With the infrequent occurrence, EMS agencies and rural hospitals reported that it was doubtful their agency/hospital would have more than a minimal stock of burn injury supplies. Therefore, developing supply caches that can be quickly mobilized and deployed to the impacted area was one of the deficiencies we identified and addressed through this process.

Analysis of real-world length of stay data and costs associated with use of autologous skin cell suspension for the treatment of small burns in U.S. centers.

BACKGROUND: Autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) is a treatment for acute thermal burn injuries associated with significantly lower donor skin requirements than conventional split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). Projections using the BEACON model suggest that among patients with small burns (total body surface area [TBSA]<20 %), use of ASCS± STSG leads to a shorter length of stay (LOS) in hospital and cost savings compared with use of STSG alone. This study evaluated whether data from real-world clinical practice corroborate these findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical record data were collected from January 2019 through August 2020 from 500 healthcare facilities in the United States. Adult patients receiving inpatient treatment with ASCS± STSG for small burns were identified and matched to patients receiving STSG using baseline characteristics. LOS was assumed to cost $7554/day and to account for 70 % of overall costs. Mean LOS and costs were calculated for the ASCS± STSG and STSG cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 151 ASCS± STSG and 2243 STSG cases were identified; 63.0 % of patients were male and the average age was 44.2 years. Sixty-three matches were made between cohorts. LOS was 18.5 days with ASCS± STSG and 20.6 days with STSG (difference: 2.1 days [10.2 %]). This difference led to bed cost savings of $15,587.62 per ASCS± STSG patient. Overall cost savings with ASCS± STSG were $22,268.03 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of real-world data shows that treatment of small burn injuries with ASCS± STSG provides reduced LOS and substantial cost savings compared with STSG, supporting the validity of the BEACON model projections.

A Risk-Benefit Review of Currently Used Dermal Substitutes for Burn Wounds.

While split-thickness autologous skin grafts remain the most common method of definitive burn wound closure, dermal substitutes have emerged as an attractive option. There are many advantages of utilizing a dermal substitute, notably reducing the need for donor tissue and subsequent iatrogenic creation of a secondary wound. However, there are disadvantages with each that most be weighed and factored into the decision. And most come at a high initial financial cost. There is little comparative literature of the various available and emerging products. This analysis was performed to objectively present risks and benefits of each option.

Length of Stay and Costs with Autologous Skin Cell Suspension Versus Split-Thickness Skin Grafts: Burn Care Data from US Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) significantly reduces donor skin requirements versus conventional split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) for thermal burn treatment. In analyses using the Burn-medical counter measure Effectiveness Assessment Cost Outcomes Nexus (BEACON) model, ASCS was associated with shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and cost savings versus STSG. This study hypothesized that daily practice data from the USA would support these findings. METHODS: Electronic medical record data from 500 healthcare facilities (January 2019-August 2020) were used to match adult patients who received inpatient burn treatment with ASCS (± STSG) to patients treated with STSG alone on the basis of sex, age, percent total body surface area (TBSA), and comorbidities. Based on BEACON analyses, LOS was assumed to represent 70% of total costs and used as a proxy to assess the data. Mean LOS, costs, and the incremental revenue associated with inpatient capacity changes were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 151 ASCS and 2443 STSG patients were identified: 63.0% were male and average age was 44.5 years. Eight-one matches were made between cohorts. LOS was 21.7 days with ASCS and 25.0 days with STSG alone (difference 3.3 days [13.2%]). LOS was lower with ASCS than STSG in four of five TBSA intervals. The LOS difference led to hospital bed cost savings of $25,864 per ASCS patient; overall cost savings were $36,949 per patient. Similar cost savings were observed in TBSA groupings < 20% and ≥ 20%. The reduced LOS with ASCS translated into an increased capacity of 2.2 inpatients/bed annually, which increased hospital revenue by $92,283/burn unit bed annually. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data show that ASCS (± STSG) is associated with reduced LOS and cost savings versus STSG alone across all burn sizes, supporting the validity of the BEACON analyses. ASCS use may also increase patient capacity and throughput, leading to increased hospital revenue.

Autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) is a treatment for thermal skin burn injuries that can be used alone or in combination with split-thickness skin grafts (STSG), the conventional standard of care. Projections using the Burn-medical counter measure Effectiveness Assessment Cost Outcomes Nexus (BEACON) model indicate that ASCS leads to shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and overall cost savings compared with STSG alone. These model findings are supported by benchmarking study data from a limited sample of US burn centers. The current study aimed to understand whether the BEACON projections are supported by daily clinical practice data from US healthcare facilities. Using electronic medical record data, we matched patients who received ASCS ± STSG from January 2019 to August 2020 to those receiving STSG alone on the basis of demographic and clinical factors. Data analysis showed that hospital LOS was shorter (3.3 days) with ASCS ± STSG than STSG alone, a difference associated with a hospital bed cost savings of $25,864 per ASCS patient. Overall cost savings, which included nursing time and other costs, were $36,949 per patient. Analysis of patients with burns comprising total body surface areas less than 20% or at least 20% showed cost savings in both groups. The reduced LOS with ASCS also translated into the ability to treat 2.2 more patients per hospital bed per year, which was projected to increase hospital earnings. These real-world findings support those of modeling analyses, indicating that use of ASCS ± STSG is associated with meaningful clinical and economic benefits compared with use of STSG alone.

Pooled safety analysis of STRATA2011 and STRATA2016 clinical trials evaluating the use of StrataGraft® in patients with deep partial-thickness thermal burns.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis includes pooled safety data from 2 clinical trials (NCT01437852; NCT03005106) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of StrataGraft in patients with deep partial-thickness (DPT) burns. METHODS: The study enrolled 101 adult patients with thermal burns covering 3-49% of total body surface area. Patients were followed for up to 1 year. The pooled safety events included: adverse events (AEs), adverse reactions (ARs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuation, and deaths; immunological responses (reactivity to panel reactive antibodies [PRA] and human leukocyte antigen [HLA] class 1 alleles); and persistence of allogeneic DNA from StrataGraft. RESULTS: Eighty-seven (86.1%) patients experienced 397 AEs. Thirty patients (29.7%) experienced ARs; 16 patients (15.8%) experienced SAEs. The most frequent AEs were pruritus (n = 31; 30.7%), and blister, hypertension, and hypertrophic scar (n = 11 each; 10.9%); the most common AR was pruritus (n = 13; 12.9%). One patient discontinued the study; 2 patients experienced SAEs (unrelated to StrataGraft) leading to death. PRA and HLA allele reactivity was ≤ 25% at Month 3, with no persistent allogeneic DNA from StrataGraft. CONCLUSIONS: StrataGraft was well tolerated by patients, with a safety profile similar to autograft. StrataGraft may offer a safe alternative to autograft for DPT burns.

Bismuth/petroleum gauze plus high density polyethylene vs. bismuth/petroleum gauze: A comparison of donor site healing and patient comfort.

INTRODUCTION: Skin grafting continues to be a fundamental component of burn treatment and inherently, a donor site must be created and treated. Burn surgeons agree that specific dressings may have a significant affect on donor site healing, but we have no consensus as to which dressing provides maximum benefit. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from an observational, within-patient controlled assessment of a practice pattern intervention. The project compared donor sites treated with high-density polyethylene plus an overlying layer of bismuth/petroleum gauze to donor sites treated with bismuth/petroleum gauze alone. The primary endpoint was patient reported pain using a standard visual analog scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). A 2-point reduction in pain was considered clinically significant. Healing was defined as complete detachment of the dressings and> 95% wound re-epitheliazation. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were observed and analyzed. Both dressings were associated with a mean pain rating of 6 out of 10 (STD= ± 2) and a median pain rating of 6 out of 10 (range = 0-10). Additionally, both dressings were associated with a mean healing time of 20 days (SEM=1.1). The subjective dressing preference showed that a majority of patients had no preference between the two modalities (n = 20). However, when an actual preference was stated (n = 10), bismuth/petroleum gauze alone was preferred by 9 out of 10 patients. CONCLUSION: Clinically and subjectively, we found no discernible differences between the 2 dressing regimens. Thus, bismuth/petroleum gauze alone is the more cost effective dressing choice. Our burn center continues to use bismuth/petroleum gauze alone as its standard of care for donor site dressings and will continue to try to define the optimal donor site dressing.

Evaluating Real-World National and Regional Trends in Definitive Closure in U.S. Burn Care: A Survey of U.S. Burn Centers.

To better understand trends in burn treatment patterns related to definitive closure, this study sought to benchmark real-world survey data with national data contained within the National Burn Repository version 8.0 (NBR v8.0) across key burn center practice patterns, resource utilization, and clinical outcomes. A survey, administered to a representative sample of U.S. burn surgeons, collected information across several domains: burn center characteristics, patient characteristics including number of patients and burn size and depth, aggregate number of procedures, resource use such as autograft procedure time and dressing changes, and costs. Survey findings were aggregated by key outcomes (number of procedures, costs) nationally and regionally. Aggregated burn center data were also compared to the NBR to identify trends relative to current treatment patterns. Benchmarking survey results against the NBR v8.0 demonstrated shifts in burn center patient mix, with more severe cases being seen in the inpatient setting and less severe burns moving to the outpatient setting. An overall reduction in the number of autograft procedures was observed compared to NBR v8.0, and time efficiencies improved as the intervention time per TBSA decreases as TBSA increases. Both nationally and regionally, an increase in costs was observed. The results suggest resource use estimates from NBR v8.0 may be higher than current practices, thus highlighting the importance of improved and timely NBR reporting and further research on burn center standard of care practices. This study demonstrates significant variations in burn center characteristics, practice patterns, and resource utilization, thus increasing our understanding of burn center operations and behavior.

Use of 816 Consecutive Burn Wound Biopsies to Inform a Histologic Algorithm for Burn Depth Categorization.

Burn experts are only 77% accurate when subjectively assessing burn depth, leaving almost a quarter of patients to undergo unnecessary surgery or conversely suffer a delay in treatment. To aid clinicians in burn depth assessment (BDA), new technologies are being studied with machine learning algorithms calibrated to histologic standards. Our group has iteratively created a theoretical burn biopsy algorithm (BBA) based on histologic analysis, and subsequently informed it with the largest burn wound biopsy repository in the literature. Here, we sought to report that process. This was an IRB-approved, prospective, multicenter study. A BBA was created a priori and refined in an iterative manner. Patients with burn wounds assessed by burn experts as requiring excision and autograft underwent 4 mm biopsies procured every 25 cm2. Serial still photos were obtained at enrollment and at excision intraoperatively. Burn biopsies were histologically assessed for presence/absence of epidermis, papillary dermis, reticular dermis, and proportion of necrotic adnexal structures by a dermatopathologist using H&E with whole slide scanning. First degree and superficial second degree were considered to be burn wounds likely to have healed without surgery, while deep second- and third-degree burns were considered unlikely to heal by 21 days. Biopsy pathology results were correlated with still photos by five burn experts for consensus of final burn depth diagnosis. Sixty-six subjects were enrolled with 117 wounds and 816 biopsies. The BBA was used to categorize subjects' wounds into four categories: 7% of burns were categorized as first degree, 13% as superficial second degree, 43% as deep second degree, and 37% as third degree. Therefore, 20% of burn wounds were incorrectly judged as needing excision and grafting by the clinical team as per the BBA. As H&E is unable to assess the viability of papillary and reticular dermis, with time our team came to appreciate the greater importance of adnexal structure necrosis over dermal appearance in assessing healing potential. Our study demonstrates that a BBA with objective histologic criteria can be used to categorize BDA with clinical misclassification rates consistent with past literature. This study serves as the largest analysis of burn biopsies by modern day burn experts and the first to define histologic parameters for BDA.

A phase 3, open-label, controlled, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of StrataGraft® construct in patients with deep partial-thickness thermal burns.

OBJECTIVE: This phase 3 study evaluated StrataGraft construct as a donor-site sparing alternative to autograft in patients with deep partial-thickness (DPT) burns. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with 3-49% total body surface area (TBSA) thermal burns were enrolled. In each patient, 2 DPT areas (≤2000cm2 total) of comparable depth after excision were randomized to either cryopreserved StrataGraft or autograft. Coprimary endpoints were: the difference in percent area of StrataGraft treatment site and autograft treatment site autografted at Month 3 (M3), and the proportion of patients achieving durable wound closure of the StrataGraft site without autograft at M3. Safety assessments were performed in all patients. Efficacy and safety follow-up continued to 1 year. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were enrolled. By M3, there was a 96% reduction in mean percent area of StrataGraft treatment sites that required autografting, compared with autograft treatment sites (4.3% vs 102.1%, respectively; P<.0001). StrataGraft treatment resulted in durable wound closure at M3 without autografting in 92% (95% CI: 85.6, 98.8; n/n 59/64) of patients for whom data were available. The most common StrataGraft-related adverse event was pruritus (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Both coprimary endpoints were achieved. StrataGraft may offer a new treatment for DPT burns to reduce the need for autografting. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT03005106.

Use of Autologous Skin Cell Suspension for the Treatment of Hand Burns: A Pilot Study.

Purpose: Autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) is a valid alternative and adjunct to split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) for treating burns. Limited data exists regarding the use of ASCS for hand burns. We hypothesized that using ASCS in hand burns shortens healing time with no difference in complications and less donor site morbidity. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of second- and third-degree hand burns treated at a level 1 Trauma and Burn Center from 2017 to 2019. Study groups included patients with hand burns treated with ASCS in combination with STSG and those treated with STSG alone. Outcomes included time to re-epithelialization, return to work, length of hospital stay, and complications including reoperation, graft failure, and infection. Results: Fifty-nine patients aged 14 to 85 years (mean age 39 ± 15 years) met inclusion criteria. The ASCS treatment group comprised 37 patients; STSG comprised 22 patients. Mean follow-up time was 14 ± 7 months. The ASCS treatment group had a larger mean percent total body surface area (TBSA) (22% ± 14% vs 6% ± 8%; P < .05). There was no difference in time to wound re-epithelialization between both groups (ASCS, 11 ± 4 days vs STSG, 11 ± 5 days). Mean length-of-stay was 23 ± 13 days compared to 10 ± 13 days (P < .05) between the ASCS and STSG groups, respectively. No patients in the ASCS group required reoperation, whereas 2 patients in the STSG group required such for an infection-related graft loss and a web space contracture release. On multivariable analysis adjusting for TBSA, ASCS was associated with an earlier return to work (P < .05). Conclusions: ASCS is safe and effective in treating hand burns. ASCS was associated with similar rates of re-epithelialization, earlier return to work, and no difference in complications compared with STSG.Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.

Updating the Burn Center Referral Criteria: Results From the 2018 eDelphi Consensus Study.

Existing burn center referral criteria were developed several years ago, and subsequent innovations in burn care have occurred. Coupled with frequent errors in the estimation of extent of burn injury and depth by referring providers, patients are both over and under-triaged when the existing criteria are used to support patient care decisions. In the absence of compelling clinical trial data on appropriate burn patient triage, we convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to execute an iterative eDelphi consensus process to facilitate a revision. The eDelphi process panel consisted of n = 61 burn stakeholders and experts and progressed through four rounds before reaching consensus on key clinical domains. The major findings are that 1) burn center consultation is strongly recommended for all patients with deep partial-thickness or deeper burns ≥ 10% TBSA burned, for full-thickness burns ≥ 5% TBSA burned, for children and older adults with specific dressing and medical needs, and for special burn circumstances including electrical, chemical, and radiation injuries; 2) smaller burns are ideally followed in burn center outpatient settings as soon as possible after injury, preferably without delays of a week or more; 3) frostbite, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TENS, and necrotizing soft-tissue infection patients benefit from burn center treatment; and 4) telemedicine and technological solutions are of likely benefit in achieving this standard. Unlike the original criteria, the revised consensus-based guidelines create a framework promoting communication so that triage and treatment are specifically tailored to individual patient characteristics, injury severity, geography, and the capabilities of referring institutions.

Initial Experience With Autologous Skin Cell Suspension for Treatment of Deep Partial-Thickness Facial Burns.

Facial burns present a challenge in burn care, as hypertrophic scarring and dyspigmentation can interfere with patients' personal identities, ocular and oral functional outcomes, and have long-term deleterious effects. The purpose of this study is to evaluate our initial experience with non-cultured, autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) for the treatment of deep partial-thickness (DPT) facial burns. Patients were enrolled at a single burn center during a multicenter, prospective, single-arm, observational study involving the compassionate use of ASCS for the treatment of large total BSA (TBSA) burns. Treatment decisions concerning facial burns were made by the senior author. Facial burns were initially excised and treated with allograft. The timing of ASCS application was influenced by an individual's clinical status; however, all patients were treated within 30 days of injury. Outcomes included subjective cosmetic parameters and the number of reoperations within 3 months. Five patients (4 males, 1 female) were treated with ASCS for DPT facial burns. Age ranged from 2.1 to 40.7 years (mean 18.2 ± 17.3 years). Average follow-up was 231.2 ± 173.1 days (range 63-424 days). Two patients required reoperation for partial graft loss within 3 months in areas of full-thickness injury. There were no major complications and one superficial hematoma. Healing and cosmetic outcomes were equivalent to, and sometimes substantially better than, outcomes typical of split-thickness autografting. Non-cultured, ASCS was successfully used to treat DPT facial burns containing confluent dermis with remarkable cosmetic outcomes. Treatment of DPT burns with ASCS may be an alternative to current treatments, particularly in patients prone to dyspigmentation, scarring sequelae, and with limited donor sites.

Surgical Escharotomy and Decompressive Therapies in Burns.

Early recognition of the need for escharotomy and other decompressive therapies is imperative for experienced burn providers, as to avoid reversible tissue ischemia and necrosis. With full-thickness burns, the eschar that develops is largely noncompliant. The predictable edema that develops during resuscitation of larger burns increases the likelihood ischemia-inducing pressure, as the underlying tissues swell within noncompliant skin, resulting in burn-induced compartment syndrome. Conventionally, this has been treated with decompressive therapies, such as escharotomy. The most recent surveys have identified that the United States and Canada both face a shortage of practicing burn surgeons. In the event of a burn disaster, many nonburn surgeons would need to provide burn care, including decompressive therapies. We reviewed the literature to provide accurate, accessible, and applicable recommendations regarding this practice following burn injury for both the practicing burn surgeon and those that would provide care in the burn disaster.