BACKGROUND: Total body surface area (TBSA) burned, expressed as percentage is one of the most important aspects of the initial care of a burn victim. It determines whether transfer to a burn centre is necessary as well as the need for, and amount of, intravenous fluid resuscitation. Numerous studies, however, have highlighted inaccuracies in TBSA assessment. Therefore, the differences in burn size estimates between referrers and burn centre's in children and its consequences in terms of transfer and intravenous fluid resuscitation were investigated.METHODS: This study involved two time periods from January 2002 until March 2004 and January 2007 until August 2008. All referred children admitted to a Dutch Burn centre within 24h post burn were eligible. Data were obtained from patient records retrospectively and in part prospectively.RESULTS: A total of 323 and 299 children were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively. Referring physicians overestimated burn size with a factor two (mean difference: 6% TBSA ± 5.5). About one in five children was referred to a burn centre without fulfilling the criteria for referral with regard to burn size (assessed by burn specialists) special localisation or inhalation trauma. Proportions of children receiving intravenous fluid resuscitation regardless of indication increased from 33% to 49% (p<0.01). The received volumes tended to be higher than necessary.CONCLUSIONS: Referring physicians overestimate burn size in children admitted to Dutch burn centres. This has little negative consequences, however, in terms of unindicated transfers to a burn centre or unnecessary fluid resuscitation.
Thermal injury destroys the physical skin barrier that normally prevents invasion of microorganisms. This and concomitant depression of local and systemic host cellular and humoral immune responses are important factors that contribute to colonization and infection of the burn wound. One of the most common burn wound pathogens is Staphylococcus aureus. Staphylococcus aureus is both a human commensal and a frequent cause of infections leading to mild to life-threatening diseases. Despite a variety of infection control measures, for example patient cohorting and contact precaution at burn centres, S. aureus is still frequently encountered in burn wounds. Colonization with S. aureus has been associated with delayed wound healing, increased need for surgical interventions, and prolonged length of stay at burn centres. In this minireview, we focus on S. aureus nasal carriage in relation to S. aureus burn wound colonization and subsequent infection, and its impact on strategies for infection control. © 2009 Federation of European Microbiological Societies Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
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.
