Perforator-Based Interposition Flaps Perform Better Than Full-Thickness Grafts for the Release of Burn Scar Contractures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Burn scar contractures remain a significant problem for the severely burned patient. Reconstructive surgery is often indicated to improve function and quality of life. Skin grafts (preferably full-thickness grafts) are frequently used to cover the defect that remains after scar release. Local flaps are also used for this purpose and provide healthy skin subcutaneous tissue. The vascularization and versatility of local flaps can be further improved by enclosing a perforator at the base of the flap. Until now, no randomized controlled trial has been performed to determine which technique has the best effectiveness in burn scar contracture releasing procedures. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the effectiveness of perforator-based interposition flaps to full-thickness skin grafts for the treatment of burn scar contractures. The primary outcome parameter was change in the surface area of the flap or full-thickness skin graft. Secondary outcome parameters were width, elasticity, color, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale score, and range of motion. Measurements were performed after 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: The mean surface area between flaps (n = 16) and full-thickness skin grafts (n = 14) differed statistically significantly at 3 months (123 percent versus 87 percent; p < 0.001) and 12 months (142 percent versus 92 percent; p < 0.001). In terms of the secondary outcome parameters (specifically, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale observer score and color), interposition flaps showed superior results compared with full-thickness skin grafts. CONCLUSION: Perforator-based interposition flaps result in a more effective scar contracture release than full-thickness skin grafts and should therefore be preferred over full-thickness skin grafts when possible. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

Epidemiology and Outcome of Patients With Burns Treated With Cerium Nitrate Silversulfadiazine.

In this study, the outcome of treatment with Flammacerium in burn patients is studied. The retrospective study involved patients with acute burns admitted to the Burn Centre of Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands, between 2009 and 2014. The outcome parameters were mortality, complications (noninfectious and infectious), need of surgery, and length of stay. The group of patients consisted of 853 patients, of which 554 were male (64.9%). There were 23 patients with a total burn size of 40% TBSA or more (2.7%). In total, 13 of the 853 patients (1.5%) died, and none of them were children (<16 years). The overall mortality in the group of patient with burns >40% TBSA was 30.4%. In the elderly group (>70 years), the mortality rate was 6.3%. Treatment with Flammacerium is applicable in all thermal burn patients. Especially children, elderly patients, and patients with severe burns can benefit from a more conservative treatment with Flammacerium whereby the first operation can be postponed until the patient is stabilized and in which the wounds can be covered directly with skin transplants.

Cost-Effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care in The Netherlands: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with burns, an early accurate diagnosis of burn depth facilitates optimal treatment. Laser Doppler imaging combined with clinical assessment leads to an accurate estimate of burn depth. However, the actual effects of the introduction of laser Doppler imaging on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes, and costs are unknown. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Dutch burn centers, including 202 patients with burns of indeterminate depth. In the standard care group, estimation of burn depth was based on clinical assessment only; in the laser Doppler imaging group, clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging were combined. Primary outcome was time to wound healing. Furthermore, therapeutic decisions and cost-effectiveness were analyzed. RESULTS: Mean time to wound healing was 14.3 days (95 percent CI, 12.8 to 15.9 days) in the laser Doppler imaging group and 15.5 days (95 percent CI, 13.9 to 17.2 days) in the standard care group (p = 0.258). On the day of randomization, clinicians decided significantly more often on operative or nonoperative treatment in the laser Doppler imaging group (p < 0.001), instead of postponing their treatment choice. Analyses in a subgroup of admitted patients requiring surgery showed a significant earlier decision for surgery and a shorter wound healing time in the laser Doppler imaging group. Mean total costs per patient were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laser Doppler imaging improved therapeutic decisions. It resulted in a shorter wound healing time in the subgroup of admitted patients requiring surgery and has the potential for cost savings of €875 per scanned patient.

Cost-effectiveness of laser Doppler imaging in burn care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Early accurate assessment of burn depth is important to determine the optimal treatment of burns. The method most used to determine burn depth is clinical assessment, which is the least expensive, but not the most accurate.Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is a technique with which a more accurate (>95%) estimate of burn depth can be made by measuring the dermal perfusion. The actual effect on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes and the costs of the introduction of this device, however, are unknown. Before we decide to implement LDI in Dutch burn care, a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDI is necessary. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter randomised controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centres: Beverwijk, Groningen and Rotterdam. All patients treated as outpatient or admitted to a burn centre within 5 days post burn, with burns of indeterminate depth (burns not obviously superficial or full thickness) and a total body surface area burned of ≤ 20% are eligible. A total of 200 patients will be included. Burn depth will be diagnosed by both clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging between 2-5 days post burn in all patients. Subsequently, patients are randomly divided in two groups: 'new diagnostic strategy' versus 'current diagnostic strategy'. The results of the LDI-scan will only be provided to the treating clinician in the 'new diagnostic strategy' group. The main endpoint is the effect of LDI on wound healing time.In addition we measure: a) the effect of LDI on other patient outcomes (quality of life, scar quality), b) the effect of LDI on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, and c) the effect of LDI on total (medical and non-medical) costs and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to our current knowledge on the use of LDI in burn care and will provide evidence on its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01489540.