Search

Purpose: Data on the epidemiology, treatment, and outcome of burn patients treated at non-burn centre hospitals are not available. The primary aim was to compare the burn characteristics of patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized burn centre. Methods: This multicentre, prospective, cohort study enrolled patients with burns admitted to a hospital without a burn centre and patients with < 10% total body surface area (TBSA) burned admitted to the burn centre. Primary outcome measure was the burn-related injury characteristics. Secondary outcome measures were adherence to the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria, treatment (costs), quality of life, and scar quality. Results: During the 2-year study period, 48 patients were admitted to a non-burn centre and 148 patients to the burn centre. In the non-burn centre group, age [44 (P25–P75 26–61) versus 30 (P25–P75 8–52) years; P = 0.007] and Injury Severity Score [2 (P25–P75 1–4) versus 1 (P25–P75 1–1); P < 0.001] were higher. In the burn centre group, the TBSA burned was significantly higher [4% (P25–P75 2–6) versus 2% (P25–P75 1–4); P = 0.001], and more surgical procedures were performed (in 54 versus 7 patients; P = 0.004). At 12 months, > 85% of the non-burn centre group and > 75% of the burn centre group reported no problems in quality of life. Scar quality score was < 1.5 in both groups, with significantly poorer scores in the burn centre group (P ≤ 0.007). Conclusion: Both groups differed in patient, burn, and treatment characteristics. At 12 months, quality of life and scar quality were good in both groups. Significantly poorer scar quality scores were found in the burn centre group. This might be related to their larger burns and more frequent surgery. The organization of burn care in the Netherlands seems to work adequately. Patients are treated locally when possible and are transferred when necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) of the anterior leg compartment (ant-CECS) is frequently treated with a minimally invasive fasciotomy. Several operative techniques and operative devices exist, but none have been compared in a systematic and randomized manner. Purpose: To compare efficacy, safety, and postoperative pain of a novel operative device (FascioMax fasciotome) with a widely accepted device created by Due and Nordstrand (Due fasciotome) during a minimally invasive fasciotomy for ant-CECS. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients with bilateral isolated ant-CECS between October 2013 and April 2018 underwent a minimally invasive fasciotomy using the FascioMax fasciotome in 1 leg and the Due fasciotome in the contralateral leg in a single operative session. Symptom reduction at 3 to 6 months and >1 year, postoperative pain within the first 2 weeks, peri- and postoperative complications, and ability to regain sports were assessed using diaries, physical examination, and timed questionnaires. Results: Included in the study were 50 patients (66% female; median age, 22 years [range, 18-65 years]). No differences between the devices were found in terms of perioperative complications (both had none), minor postoperative complications including hematoma and superficial wound infection (overall complication rate: FascioMax, 8% vs Due, 6%), or reduction of CECS-associated symptoms at rest and during exercise. At long-term follow-up (>1 year), 82% of the patients were able to regain their desired type of sport, and 67% (33/49) were able to exercise at a level that was comparable with or higher than before their CECS-associated symptoms started. Conclusion: Both the FascioMax and the Due performed similarly in terms of efficacy, safety, and levels of pain within the first 2 weeks postoperatively. Registration: NL4274; Netherlands Trial Register. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Unfallchirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction The Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria have been implemented for optimal triaging of burn patients. Admission to a burn centre is indicated for patients with severe burns or with specific characteristics like older age or comorbidities. Patients not meeting these criteria can also be treated in a hospital without burn centre. Limited information is available about the organisation of care and referral of these patients. The aims of this study are to determine the burn injury characteristics, treatment (costs), quality of life and scar quality of burn patients admitted to a hospital without dedicated burn centre. These data will subsequently be compared with data from patients with<10% total body surface area (TBSA) burned who are admitted (or secondarily referred) to a burn centre. If admissions were in agreement with the EMSB, referral criteria will also be determined. Methods and analysis In this multicentre, prospective, observational study (cohort study), the following two groups of patients will be followed: 1) all patients (no age limit) admitted with burn-related injuries to a hospital without a dedicated burn centre in the Southwest Netherlands or Brabant Trauma Region and 2) all patients (no age limit) with <10% TBSA burned who are primarily admitted (or secondarily referred) to the burn centre of Maasstad Hospital. Data on the burn injury characteristics (primary outcome), EMSB compliance, treatment, treatment costs and outcome will be collected from the patients' medical files. At 3 weeks and at 3, 6 and 12 months after trauma, patients will be asked to complete the quality of life questionnaire (EuroQoL-5D), and the patient-reported part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). At those time visits, the coordinating investigator or research assistant will complete the observer-reported part of the POSAS. Ethics and dissemination This study has been exempted by the medical research ethics committee Erasmus MC (Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Each participant will provide written consent to participate and remain encoded during the study. The results of the study are planned to be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number NTR6565. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome (ACNES) may result in chronic abdominal pain. Therapeutic options include local injection therapy. Data on the efficacy of adding corticosteroids to these injections is lacking. Methods: Patients =18 years with ACNES were randomized to receive an injection of lidocaine with (LC-group) or without (LA-group) the addition of methylprednisolone into the point of maximal abdominal wall pain. Pain was recorded using a numeric rating scale (NRS: 0-10) and a verbal rating scale (VRS: 0 = no pain, 5 = unbearable pain) at baseline and 6 weeks after the start of a bi-weekly injection regimen consisting of a total of three injections. A minimal 50% reduction on NRS and/or two points on VRS were considered successful responses. Results: Between February 2014 and August 2016, 136 patients (median age 46 year, range 18-79, 75% females) were randomized (68 vs. 68). The proportion of patients demonstrating a successful response after 6 weeks did not significantly differ between groups (LA 38%, LC 31%, p = 0.61). At 12 weeks, the number of patients still experiencing a minimal 50% pain relief had decreased but no group difference was observed (LA 20%, LC 18%, p = 0.80). Minor side effects included temporary increase of pain, tenderness at injection sites or transient malaise (LA23/68, LC 29/68, p = 0.46). Conclusions: Adding corticosteroids to a lidocaine does not increase the proportion of ACNES patients with a successful response to injection therapy. Lidocaine alone can provide long term pain relief after one or multiple injections, in approximately 1 of 5 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]