Hydrosurgical and conventional debridement of burns:randomized clinical trial

Background: Tangential excision of burned tissue followed by skin grafting is the cornerstone of burn surgery. Hydrosurgery has become popular for tangential excision, with the hypothesis that enhanced preservation of vital dermal tissue reduces scarring. The aim of this trial was to compare scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement before split-skin grafting. Methods: A double-blind randomized within-patient multicentre controlled trial was conducted in patients with burns that required split-skin grafting. One wound area was randomized to hydrosurgical debridement and the other to Weck knife debridement. The primary outcome was scar quality at 12 months, assessed with the observer part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Secondary outcomes included complications, scar quality, colour, pliability, and histological dermal preservation. Results: Some 137 patients were randomized. At 12 months, scars of the hydrosurgical debrided wounds had a lower POSAS observer total item score (mean 2.42 (95 per cent c.i. 2.26 to 2.59) versus 2.54 (95 per cent c.i. 2.36 to 2.72; P =0.023)) and overall opinion score (mean 3.08 (95 per cent c.i. 2.88 to 3.28) versus 3.30 (95 per cent c.i. 3.09-3.51); P = 0.006). Patient-reported scar quality and pliability measurements were significantly better for the hydrosurgically debrided wounds. Complication rates did not differ between both treatments. Histologically, significantly more dermis was preserved with hydrosurgery (P < 0.001). Conclusion: One year after surgery scar quality and pliability was better for hydrosurgically debrided burns, probably owing to enhanced histological preservation of dermis

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

Burns in the elderly: a nationwide study on management and clinical outcomes

Background: In modern-day burn care, advanced age remains an important predictor for mortality among burn victims. In this study, we compared the complete treatment trajectory (including prehospital and surgical treatment) and the outcomes between an elderly burn population and a younger adult burn population. Methods: In this nationwide study, data from the Dutch Burn Repository were used. This is a uniform national registration for Dutch specialized burn care. All adult patients that were admitted to one of the three Dutch burn centres from the period 2009 to 2015 were included in the analysis. Burn patients were considered as elderly when ≥65 years of age, and were then further subdivided into three age categories: 65–74, 75–85 and 85+ years. Younger adults in the age category 18–64 years were used as the reference group. Surgical management was studie

Long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Deep dermal burns require tangential excision of non-viable tissue and skin grafting to improve wound healing and burn-scar quality. Tangential excision is conventionally performed with a knife, but during the last decade hydrosurgery has become popular as a new tool for tangential excision. Hydrosurgery is generally thought to be a more precise and controlled manner of burn debridement leading to preservation of viable tissue and, therefore, better scar quality. Although scar quality is considered to be one of the most important outcomes in burn surgery today, no randomized controlled study has compared the effect of these two common treatment modalities with scar quality as a primary outcome. The aim of this study is, therefore, to compare long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional tangential excision in deep dermal burns. Methods/design: A multicenter, randomized, intra-patient, controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centers of Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen. All patients with deep dermal burns that require excision and grafting are eligible. Exclusion criteria are: a burn wound 30%, full-thickness burns, chemical or electrical burns, infected wounds (clinical symptoms in combination with positive wound swabs), insufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language, patients that are unlikely to comply with requirements of the study protocol and follow-up, and patients who are (temporarily) incompetent because of sedation and/or intubation. A total of 137 patients will be included. Comparable wound areas A and B will be appointed, randomized and either excised conventionally with a knife or with the hydrosurgery system. The primary outcome is scar quality measured by the observer score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS); a subjective scar-assessment instrument, consisting of two separate six-item scales (observer and patient) that are both scored on a 10-point rating scale. Discussion: This study will contribute to the optimal surgi

Patient-reported scar quality of donor-sites following split-skin grafting in burn patients: Long-term results of a prospective cohort study

Background: Skin grafting is the current gold standard for treatment of deeper burns. How patients appraise the donor-site scar is poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of donor-site scars after split skin grafting and identify possible predictors. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were included in a Dutch burn centre during one year. Patient-reported quality of donor-site scars and their worst burn scar was assessed at 12 months using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Mixed model analyses were used to identify predictors of scar quality. Results: This study included 115 donor-site scars of 72 patients with a mean TBSA burned of 11.2%. The vast majority of the donor-site scars (84.4%) were rated as having at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and the

Course of scar quality of donor sites following split skin graft harvesting: Comparison between patients and observers

There exists little to no data on the development of donor-site scars that remain after split skin graft harvesting. The objectives of this study were to (a) examine changes in characteristics of donor-site scar quality over time and (b) assess the agreement between patient-reported and observer-reported donor-site scar quality in a burn population. A prospective cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent split skin grafting for their burn injury. Patients and observers completed the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for the first harvested donor site at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. This study included 80 patients with a median age of 34 years. At 3 months post-surgery, the patients scored the POSAS items itch and color as most deviant from normal skin, both improved between 3 and 12 months (3.1 vs 1.5 and 5.0 vs 3.5, respectively [P <.001]). Other scar characteristics did not show significant change over time. The patients' overall opinion score improved from 3.9 to 3.2 (P <.001). Observers rated the items vascularization and pigmentation most severe, only vascularization improved significantly between both time points. Their overall opinion score decreased from 2.7 to 2.3 (P <.001). The inter-observer agreement between patients and observers was considered poor (ICC < 0.4) at both time points. Results of current study indicate that observers underestimate the impact of donor-site scars. This has to b

Patient-reported scar quality of donor-sites following split-skin grafting in burn patients: Long-term results of a prospective cohort study

Background: Skin grafting is the current gold standard for treatment of deeper burns. How patients appraise the donor-site scar is poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of donor-site scars after split skin grafting and identify possible predictors. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were included in a Dutch burn centre during one year. Patient-reported quality of donor-site scars and their worst burn scar was assessed at 12 months using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Mixed model analyses were used to identify predictors of scar quality. Results: This study included 115 donor-site scars of 72 patients with a mean TBSA burned of 11.2%. The vast majority of the donor-site scars (84.4%) were rated as having at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and the overall opinion on 80.9% of the donor-site scars was that they deviated from normal skin 12 months after surgery. The overall opinion on the donor-site scar was 3.2 ± 2.1 vs. 5.1 ± 2.4 on the burn scar. A younger age, female gender, a darker skin type, and location on the lower leg were predictors of reduced donor-site scar quality. In addition, time to re-epithelization was associated with scar quality. Conclusion: This study provided new insights in long-term scar quality of donor-sites. Donor-site scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the population 12 months after surgery. Results of this study can be used to inform patients on the long-term outcomes of their scars and to tailor preventive or therapeutic treatment options

Course of scar quality of donor sites following split skin graft harvesting: Comparison between patients and observers

There exists little to no data on the development of donor-site scars that remain after split skin graft harvesting. The objectives of this study were to (a) examine changes in characteristics of donor-site scar quality over time and (b) assess the agreement between patient-reported and observer-reported donor-site scar quality in a burn population. A prospective cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent split skin grafting for their burn injury. Patients and observers completed the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for the first harvested donor site at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. This study included 80 patients with a median age of 34 years. At 3 months post-surgery, the patients scored the POSAS items itch and color as most deviant from normal skin, both improved between 3 and 12 months (3.1 vs 1.5 and 5.0 vs 3.5, respectively [P '.001]). Other scar characteristics did not show significant change over time. The patients' overall opinion score improved from 3.9 to 3.2 (P '.001). Observers rated the items vascularization and pigmentation most severe, only vascularization improved significantly between both time points. Their overall opinion score decreased from 2.7 to 2.3 (P '.001). The inter-observer agreement between patients and observers was considered poor (ICC ' 0.4) at both time points. Results of current study indicate that observers underestimate the impact of donor-site scars. This has to be kept in mind while guiding therapy and expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, prospective cohort study