Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries
-
Visual evaluation is the most common method of evaluating burn wounds. Its subjective nature can lead to inaccurate diagnoses and inappropriate burn center referrals. Machine learning may provide an objective solution. The objective of this study is to summarize the literature on ML in burn wound evaluation. ⋯ Machine learning provides an objective adjunct that may improve diagnostic accuracy in evaluating burn wound severity. Existing models remain in the early stages with future studies needed to assess their clinical feasibility.
-
While the benefits of early excision in burn surgery are clear, the advantages may be lost in low income countries with limited resources. It is important to identify the right timing of excision in different groups of patients, particularly those in low-income countries (LIC), as the burden of disease contributes to the highest global mortality and has the least resources. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the timing of excision in LICs and the outcomes associated with surgery: (1) mortality, (2) sepsis and (3) length of stay (LOS) compared to high income countries (HICs). ⋯ The variable definitions of age, timing of excision, variable nature of % TBSA comparison, mixed inclusion of inhalation injury, co-morbidities and unquantified access to resources make the data difficult to interpret and it is not possible to draw accurate conclusions on the role of early excision for burns in low-middle income countries. A prospective study is needed in order to answer this question.
-
Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is still not an ubiquitous part of burn care worldwide despite reported accuracy rates of more than 95%, which is significantly higher than clinical assessment alone (50-75%). The aims of Part I of this survey study are: to identify the most important barriers for the use of LDI and to provide useful recommendations for efficient implementation in routine burn care. The actual interpretation and use of LDI measurements is discussed in the Enigma Part II article. ⋯ Barriers for the routine implementation of LDI were: 1. cost of purchasing and using an LDI combined with health care systems that inadequately reimburse non-surgical management; 2. lack of awareness of or ongoing skepticism towards the scientific evidence supporting LDI use; and 3. organizational constraints combined with logistical limitations. Our recommendations for wider use of LDI technology include: 1. a cost-effective reimbursement of LDI use combined with a more appropriate valuation of expert conservative management compared to surgical therapy; 2. increased use of LDI for every mixed depth burn and; 3. specialized LDI teams to improve burn procedural flexibility and to enable embedding LDI use in the burn care routine. Implementing these measures would promote the highest standards for LDI measurements and interpretation resulting in optimal care with mutual benefits for the hospital, for burn care teams and, most importantly, for the patients.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Validation of the modified NUTrition Risk Score (mNUTRIC) in mechanically ventilated, severe burn patients: A prospective multinational cohort study.
Whether nutrition therapy benefits all burn victims equally is unknown. To identify patients who will benefit the most from optimal nutrition, the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) Score has been validated in the Intensive Care Unit. However, the utility of mNUTRIC in severe burn victims is unknown. We hypothesized that a higher mNUTRIC (≥5) will be associated with worse clinical outcomes, but that greater nutritional adequacy will be associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with higher mNUTRIC score. ⋯ The mNUTRIC score identifies those with poor clinical outcomes and may identifies those mechanically ventilated, severe burn patients in whom optimal nutrition therapy may be more advantageous.