For deep partial-thickness burns no consensus on the optimal treatment has been reached due to conflicting study outcomes with low quality evidence. Treatment options in high- and middle-income countries include conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed; and early excision and grafting. The majority of timing of surgery studies focus on survival rather than on quality of life. This study protocol describes a study that aims to compare long-term scar quality, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes between the treatment options. A multicentre prospective study will be conducted in the three Dutch burn centres (Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen). All adult patients with acute deep-partial thickness burns, based on healing potential with Laser Doppler Imaging, are eligible for inclusion. During a nine-month baseline period, standard practice will be monitored. This includes conservative treatment with dressings and topical agents, and excision and grafting of residual defects if needed 14–21 days post-burn. The subsequent nine months, early surgery is advocated, involving excision and grafting in the first week to ten days post-burn. The primary outcome compared between the two groups is long-term scar quality assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 twelve months after discharge. Secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes like quality of life and return to work. The aim of the study is to assess long-term scar quality in deep partial-thickness burns after conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed, compared to early excision and grafting. Adding to the ongoing debate on the optimal treatment of these burns. The broad range of studied outcomes will be used for the development of a decision aid for deep partial-thickness burns, to fully inform patients at the point of consent to surgery and support optimal person-centred care.
DOCUMENT
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. Registration number: Trial NL6085 (NTR6232 (http://www.trialregister.nl)).
DOCUMENT
Background: Only a few papers are published on the safety and effectiveness of acute burn care in low-income countries. A cohort study was therefore carried out to determine such outcomes.Methods: The study was conducted in a rural Tanzanian hospital in 2017-2018. All patients admitted with burns were eligible. Complications were scored during admission as an indication for safety. Survivors of severe burn injuries were evaluated for time of reepithelialization, graft take, disability (WHODAS2.0) and quality of life (EQ5D-3L) up to 3 months post-injury, as an indication of effectiveness.Results: Patients presented on average at 5 days after injury (SD 11, median 1, IQR 0-4). Three patients died at admission. The remaining 79 were included in the cohort. Their median age was 3 years (IQR 2-9, range 0.5-49), mean TBSA burned 12% (SD10%) and mortality rate 11.4%. No surgery-related mortality or life-threatening complications were observed. Skin grafting was performed on 29 patients at a delayed stage (median 23 days, IQR 15-47). Complications of skin grafts included partial (25% of procedures) and complete graft necrosis (8% of procedures). The mean time to reepithelialization was 52 (SD 42) days after admission. Disability and quality of life improved from admission to 3 months after injury (p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively).Conclusion: In this resource-limited setting patients presented after a delay and with multiple complications. The mortality during the first two weeks after admission was high. Surgery was found to be safe and effective. A significant improvement in disability and quality of life was observed.
DOCUMENT
