BACKGROUND: The face is a very frequent site of burn injuries. This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial thus investigates the effectiveness of cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine in the treatment of facial burns compared with silver sulfadiazine.METHODS: Adult patients with acute facial burns admitted to Dutch burn centers were randomized to treatment with either cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine or silver sulfadiazine. Primary outcome was need for surgery and time to wound healing. Aesthetic and functional outcome was assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months after burn.RESULTS: From March of 2006 until January of 2009, 179 patients were randomized and 154 could be included. The two groups of patients (cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine group, n=78; silver sulfadiazine group, n=76), were comparable regarding sex, age, percentage total body surface area burned, and cause. During admission, four patients died, leaving 77 and 73 patients for primary analyses, respectively. Surgery was required in 13 (16.9 percent) compared with 15 patients (20.5 percent) (p=0.57; odds ratio, 0.8; 95 percent CI, 0.3 to 1.8), respectively. Median time to wound healing was 11.0 days in the cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine group (interquartile range, 7.0 to 15.0) and 9.0 days for silver sulfadiazine group (interquartile range, 5.0 to 15.75) (p=0.17). There were no significant differences in functional and aesthetic outcome.CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found in effectiveness of both treatments. The vast majority of facial burns do not require surgery, and treatment with cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine and silver sulfadiazine leads to satisfactory outcome, both aesthetically and functionally.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The face is a frequent site of burn, but prevalence rates vary and reports are often limited to one healthcare setting. We examined the incidence of facial burns in the Netherlands in Emergency Departments (ED), hospitals and burn centres. Additionally, we identified which patient, injury and burn-related characteristics were predictors of facial burns, facial surgery and facial reconstruction in burn centres.METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was conducted including data from the Dutch Injury Surveillance System, the National Hospital Discharge Register and burn centres in a 5-year period (2003-2007).RESULTS: Facial burn incidences per 100,000 were 15.1 for ED visits, 1.3 for hospital admissions and 1.4 for burn centre admissions. A total of 2691 patients were admitted to Dutch burn centres; 47.5% (n=1277) had facial burns of which 20.5% received primary facial surgery and 5.3% received facial reconstruction in follow-up. Predictors of facial burns and facial surgery were identified. Predictors of facial reconstructive surgery were burns to the neck (ventral), fire/flame burns and number of facial surgeries in the acute phase of the burn.CONCLUSIONS: One in five patients with facial burns admitted to a Dutch burn centre received primary facial surgery and 1 in 20 received facial reconstructive surgery within a follow-up of minimum 2 years.
DOCUMENT
Background: Previous systematic reviews revealed poor reliability and validity for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) mobility tests. However, these reviews were published nearly 20 years ago and recent evidence has not yet been summarised. Objectives: To conduct an up-to-date systematic review to verify whether recommendations regarding the clinical use of SIJ mobility tests should be revised. Study design: Systematic review. Method: The literature was searched for relevant articles via 5 electronic databases. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. COSMIN checklists were used to appraise the methodological quality. Studies were included if they had at least fair methodology and reported clinimetric properties of SIJ mobility tests performed in adult patients with non-specific low back pain, pelvic (girdle) pain and/or SIJ pain. Only tests that can be performed in a clinical setting were considered. Results: Twelve relevant articles were identified, of which three were of sufficient methodological quality. These three studies evaluated the reliability of eight SIJ mobility tests and one test cluster. For the majority of individual tests, the intertester reliability showed slight to fair agreement. Although some tests and one test cluster had higher reliability, the confidence intervals around most reliability estimates were large. Furthermore, there were no validity studies of sufficient methodological quality. Conclusion: Considering the low and/or imprecise reliability estimates, the absence of high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies, and the uncertainty regarding the construct these tests aim to measure, this review supports the previous recommendations that the use of SIJ mobility tests in clinical practice is problematic.
LINK
