Impact of COVID-19 on global burn care.

Worldwide, different strategies have been chosen to face the COVID-19-patient surge, often affecting access to health care for other patients. This observational study aimed to investigate whether the standard of burn care changed globally during the pandemic, and whether country´s income, geographical location, COVID-19-transmission pattern, and levels of specialization of the burn units affected reallocation of resources and access to burn care. The Burn Care Survey is a questionnaire developed to collect information on the capacity to provide burn care by burn units around the world, before and during the pandemic. The survey was distributed between September and October 2020. McNemar`s test analyzed differences between services provided before and during the pandemic, χ2 or Fisher's exact test differences between groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the independent effect of different factors on keeping the burn units open during the pandemic. The survey was completed by 234 burn units in 43 countries. During the pandemic, presence of burn surgeons did not change (p = 0.06), while that of anesthetists and dedicated nursing staff was reduced (<0.01), and so did the capacity to manage patients in all age groups (p = 0.04). Use of telemedicine was implemented (p < 0.01), collaboration between burn centers was not. Burn units in LMICs and LICs were more likely to be closed, after adjustment for other factors. During the pandemic, most burn units were open, although availability of standard resources diminished worldwide. The use of telemedicine increased, suggesting the implementation of new strategies to manage burns. Low income was independently associated with reduced access to burn care. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Gram Negative Wound Infection in Hospitalised Adult Burn Patients-Systematic Review and Metanalysis-

BACKGROUND: Gram negative infection is a major determinant of morbidity and survival. Traditional teaching suggests that burn wound infections in different centres are caused by differing sets of causative organisms. This study established whether Gram-negative burn wound isolates associated to clinical wound infection differ between burn centres. METHODS: Studies investigating adult hospitalised patients (2000-2010) were critically appraised and qualified to a levels of evidence hierarchy. The contribution of bacterial pathogen type, and burn centre to the variance in standardised incidence of Gram-negative burn wound infection was analysed using two-way analysis of variance. PRIMARY FINDINGS: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanni, Enterobacter spp., Proteus spp. and Escherichia coli emerged as the commonest Gram-negative burn wound pathogens. Individual pathogens' incidence did not differ significantly between burn centres (F (4, 20) = 1.1, p = 0.3797; r2 = 9.84). INTERPRETATION: Gram-negative infections predominate in burn surgery. This study is the first to establish that burn wound infections do not differ significantly between burn centres. It is the first study to report the pathogens responsible for the majority of Gram-negative infections in these patients. Whilst burn wound infection is not exclusive to these bacteria, it is hoped that reporting the presence of this group of common Gram-negative "target organisms" facilitate clinical practice and target research towards a defined clinical demand.peer-reviewe

Severe multiple extensive postburn contractures: A simultaneous approach with total scar tissue excision and resurfacing with dermal regeneration template

Deep partial or full-thickness burns if untreated, neglected, or managed conservatively can develop dysfunctional scar contractures with severe deformities and significant reduction in patient's activities of daily life. These burn sequelae can require multistage procedures to restore anatomy and function. These include single scar release, use of skin grafts, skin expansion, regional or free musculocutaneous or fasciocutaneous flaps to achieve adequate functional improvement. The use of dermal regeneration template (Integra®), initially used in primary burns reconstruction, has been already described and compared in single scar contracture-releasing procedures, but to our knowledge, it has not been used in the simultaneous releasing of multiple severe extensive postburn contractures. A simultaneous approach with total scar tissue excision and resurfacing with Integra may reduce the number of operations and the prolonged time period of treatment required by conventional procedures of multistage scar contracture release. A 7-year-old girl, who developed severe postburn scar contractures involving the right upper limb, right axilla, neck, and face after healing of a deep 16% total body surface area burn injury, was treated with this approach. Restoration of anatomy and function, with significant improvement in the range of movement of the involved regions, was achieved in a relatively short period of time (15 weeks) with limited donor-site morbidity and preservation of donor areas for possible future procedures. Total scar tissue excision and resurfacing with Integra should be considered as a valid option in case of simultaneous management of severe multiple extensive scar contractures

Variations in Clinical Audit Collection: A Survey of Plastic Surgery Units Across the British Isles

INTRODUCTION Clinical audit is a requirement of good medical and surgical practice and is central to the UK Government's plans to modernise the NHS. MATERIALS AND METHODS A survey was conducted to assess clinical audit data collection and collation within plastic surgery departments across the UK. The survey identified a variety of different data collection and collation methods, with extensive differences between plastic surgery departments. Those responsible for data collection and its funding were also identified by the survey. RESULTS Results were obtained from 45 plastic surgery departments. Of the 45 departments surveyed, 12 collect data prospectively, whereas 26 units collect data retrospectively. The remaining departments collect data using a combination of methods. Of the units surveyed, 28 collect data on paper-based systems, with only 13 units using electronic applications. The personnel responsible for data collection were identified as being junior doctors. Departments collecting data prospectively do so from a greater number of sources than those collecting data retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS This survey has focused on plastic surgery. The authors believe that similar results would be obtained from a survey of other surgical specialties. A huge variation in all parameters relating to the collection and collation of clinical audit data is seen. There are few standards within this specialty for data collection. Much work must be done in order to reach targets set by the UK Governmen

Literature Included for Critical Appraisal.

<p>Literature Included for Critical Appraisal.</p

Box-whisker plot reporting data dispersion for the standardised incidence of Gram-negative burn wound injury in civilian adult hospitalised patients.

<p>Data shown represents mean±1SD.</p

An international RAND/UCLA expert panel to determine the optimal diagnosis and management of burn inhalation injury.

BACKGROUND: Burn inhalation injury (BII) is a major cause of burn-related mortality and morbidity. Despite published practice guidelines, no consensus exists for the best strategies regarding diagnosis and management of BII. A modified DELPHI study using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method (RAM) systematically analysed the opinions of an expert panel. Expert opinion was combined with available evidence to determine what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate judgement in the diagnosis and management of BII. METHODS: A 15-person multidisciplinary panel comprised anaesthetists, intensivists and plastic surgeons involved in the clinical management of major burn patients adopted a modified Delphi approach using the RAM method. They rated the appropriateness of statements describing diagnostic and management options for BII on a Likert scale. A modified final survey comprising 140 statements was completed, subdivided into history and physical examination (20), investigations (39), airway management (5), systemic toxicity (23), invasive mechanical ventilation (29) and pharmacotherapy (24). Median appropriateness ratings and the disagreement index (DI) were calculated to classify statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. RESULTS: Of 140 statements, 74 were rated as appropriate, 40 as uncertain and 26 as inappropriate. Initial intubation with ≥ 8.0&nbsp;mm endotracheal tubes, lung protective ventilatory strategies, initial bronchoscopic lavage, serial bronchoscopic lavage for severe BII, nebulised heparin and salbutamol administration for moderate-severe BII and N-acetylcysteine for moderate BII were rated appropriate. Non-protective ventilatory strategies, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, high-frequency percussive ventilation, prophylactic systemic antibiotics and corticosteroids were rated inappropriate. Experts disagreed (DI ≥ 1) on six statements, classified uncertain: the use of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy to guide fluid requirements (DI = 1.52), intubation with endotracheal tubes of internal diameter &lt; 8.0&nbsp;mm (DI = 1.19), use of airway pressure release ventilation modality (DI = 1.19) and nebulised 5000IU heparin, N-acetylcysteine and salbutamol for mild BII (DI = 1.52, 1.70, 1.36, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Burns experts mostly agreed on appropriate and inappropriate diagnostic and management criteria of BII as in published guidance. Uncertainty exists as to the optimal diagnosis and management of differing grades of severity of BII. Future research should investigate the accuracy of bronchoscopic grading of BII, the value of bronchial lavage in differing severity groups and the effectiveness of nebulised therapies in different severities of BII

Impact of COVID-19 on global burn care

Background: Worldwide, different strategies have been chosen to face the COVID-19-patient surge, often affecting access to health care for other patients. This observational study aimed to investigate whether the standard of burn care changed globally during the pan-demic, and whether country acute accent s income, geographical location, COVID-19-transmission pat-tern, and levels of specialization of the burn units affected reallocation of resources and access to burn care.Methods: The Burn Care Survey is a questionnaire developed to collect information on the capacity to provide burn care by burn units around the world, before and during the pandemic. The survey was distributed between September and October 2020. McNemar`s test analyzed differences between services provided before and during the pandemic, chi 2 or Fishers exact test differences between groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the independent effect of different factors on keeping the burn units open during the pandemic.Results: The survey was completed by 234 burn units in 43 countries. During the pandemic, presence of burn surgeons did not change (p = 0.06), while that of anesthetists and dedi-cated nursing staff was reduced (&amp;lt; 0.01), and so did the capacity to manage patients in all age groups (p = 0.04). Use of telemedicine was implemented (p &amp;lt; 0.01), collaboration be-tween burn centers was not. Burn units in LMICs and LICs were more likely to be closed, after adjustment for other factors.Conclusions: During the pandemic, most burn units were open, although availability of standard resources diminished worldwide. The use of telemedicine increased, suggesting the implementation of new strategies to manage burns. Low income was independently associated with reduced access to burn care.(c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)