Search

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.

Background: A European response plan to burn mass casualty incidents has been jointly developed by the European Commission and the European Burn Association. Upon request for assistance by an affected country, the plan outlines a mechanism for coordinated international assistance, aiming to alleviate the burden of care in the affected country and to offer adequate specialized care to all patients who can benefit from it. To that aim, Burn Assessment Teams are deployed to assess and triage patients. Their transportation priority recommendations are used to distribute outnumbering burn casualties to foreign burn centers. Following an appropriate medical evacuation, these casualties receive specialized care in those facilities. Methods: The European Burns Associations disaster committee developed medical-organizational guidelines to support this European plan. The experts identified fields of interest, defined questions to be addressed, performed relevant literature searches, and added their expertise in burn disaster preparedness and response. Due to the lack of highlevel evidence in the available literature, recommendations and specially designed implementation tools were provided from expert opinion. The European Burns Association officially endorsed the draft recommendations in 2019, and the final full text was approved by the EBA executive committee in 2022. Recommendations: The resulting 46 recommendations address four fields. Field 1 underlines the need for national preparedness plans and the necessary core items within such plans, including coordination and integration with an international response. Field 2 describes Burn Assessment Teams roles, composition, training requirements, and reporting goals. Field 3 addresses the goals of specialized in-hospital triage, appropriate severity criteria, and their effects on priorities and triage. Finally, field 4 covers medical evacuations, including their timing and organization, the composition of evacuation teams and, Funding Agencies|European Commission, Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO); European Commission, Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) [ECHOB1-NP-2019-05]

Patients with extensive and complex wounds due to Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections (NSTI) may be referred to a burn center. This study describes the characteristics, outcomes, as well as diagnostic challenges of these patients. Patients admitted to three hospitals with a burn center for the treatment of NSTI in a 5-year period were included. Eighty patients (median age 54 years, 60% male) were identified, of whom 30 (38%) were referred by other centers, usually after survival of the initial septic phase. Those referred from other centers, compared to those primarily admitted to the study hospitals, were more likely to have group A streptococcal involvement (62% vs 35%, p = .02), larger wounds (median 7% vs 2% total body surface area, p < .001), and a longer length of stay (median 49 vs 22 days, p < .001). Despite a high incidence of septic shock (50%), the mortality rate was low (12%) for those primarily admitted. Approximately half (53%) of the patients were initially misdiagnosed upon presentation, which was associated with delay to first surgery (16 hours vs 4 hours, p < .001). Those initially misdiagnosed had more (severe) comorbidities, and less frequently reported pain or blue livid discoloration of the skin. This study underlines the burn centers' function as referral centers for extensively affected patients with NSTI. Besides the unique wound and reconstructive expertise, the low mortality rate indicates these centers provide adequate acute care as well. A major remaining challenge remains recognition of the disease upon presentation. Future studies in which factors associated with misdiagnosis are explored are needed.

Background: The population of elderly patients with burn injuries is growing. Insight into long-term mortality rates of elderly after burn injury and predictors affecting outcome is limited. This study aimed to provide this information. Methods: A multicentre observational retrospective cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥65 years, admitted with burn injuries between 2009 and 2018, were included. Data were retrieved from electronic patient records and the Dutch Burn Repository R3. Mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess predictors for in-hospital mortality and mortality after discharge at 1 year and five-year. Survival analysis was used to assess predictors of five-year mortality. Results: In total, 682/771 admitted patients were discharged. One-year and five-year mortality rates were 8.1 and 23.4%. The SMRs were 1.9(95%CI 1.5–2.5) and 1.4(95%CI 1.2–1.6), respectively. The SMRs were highest in patients aged 75–80 years at 1 year (SMRs 2.7, 95%CI 1.82–3.87) and five-year in patients aged 65–74 years (SMRs 10.1, 95%CI 7.7–13.0). Independent predictors for mortality at 1 year after discharge were higher age (OR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0–1.1), severe comorbidity, (ASA-score ≥ 3) (OR 4.8, 95%CI 2.3–9.7), and a non-home discharge location (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1–3.8). The relative risk of dying up to five-year was increased by age (HR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0–1.1), severe comorbidity (HR 2.3, 95%CI 1.6–3.5), and non-home discharge location (HR 2.1, 95%CI 1.4–3.2). Conclusion: Long-term mortality until five-year after burn injury was higher than the age and sex-matched general Dutch population, and predicted by higher age, severe comorbidity, and a non-home discharge destination. Next to pre-injury characteristics, potential long-lasting systemic consequences on biological mechanisms following burn injuries probably play a role in increased mortality. Decreased health sta

Background: Burn care is centralized in highly specialized burn centers in Europe. These centers are of limited capacity and may be overwhelmed by a sudden surge in case of a burn mass casualty incident. Prior incidents in Europe and abroad have sustained high standards of care through well-orchestrated responses to share the burden of care in several burn centers. A burn mass casualty incident in Romania in 2015 sparked an initiative to strengthen the existing EU mechanisms. This paper aims to provide insight into developing a response plan for burn mass casualties within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Methods: The European Burns Association drafted medical guidelines for burn mass casualty incidents based on a literature review and an in-depth analysis of the Romanian incident. An online questionnaire surveyed European burn centers and EU States for burn mass casualty preparedness. Results: The Romanian burn mass casualty in 2015 highlighted the lack of a burn-specific mechanism, leading to the late onset of international transfers. In Europe, 71% of respondents had existing mass casualty response plans, though only 35% reported having a burn-specific plan. A burns response plan for burn mass casualties was developed and adopted as a Commission staff working document in preparation for further implementation. The plan builds on the existing Union Civil Protection Mechanism framework and the standards of the WHO Emergency Medical Teams initiative to provide 1) burn assessment teams for specialized in-hospital triage of patients, 2) specialized burn care across European burn centers, and 3) medevac capacities from participating states. Conclusion: The European burn mass casualty response plan could enable the delivery of high-level burn care in the face of an overwhelming incident in an affected European country. Further steps for integration and implementation of the plan within the Union Civil Protection Mechanism framework are needed., Funding Agencies|European Commission [ECHOB1-NP-2019-05]

The EQ-5D is increasingly used to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of adult patients with intermediate burns. However, this generic instrument may lack sensitivity, as important problems for burn patients, such as itching and cognition problems are not included in this instrument. This retrospective observational study investigates the value of adding an itching and cognition item to the EQ-5D-3L. Patients completed the EQ-5D-3L, and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), including an itching item and an extra cognition item three months postburn. The potential added value of an itching and cognition item was studied by distribution, informativity, convergent validity, dimension dependency, and explanatory analyses. In total, 120 patients were included of whom 65% reported itching and 23% reported cognition problems. Adding an itching item to the EQ-5D improved the discriminatory power and informativity of the EQ-5D-3L, but barely increased the explanatory power (0.4%) and decreased the convergent validity (r = −0.529 vs. r = −0.612). In contrast, adding a cognition item slightly improved the informativity and discriminatory power. Moreover, convergent validity (r = −0.617 vs. r = −0.612) and explanatory power increased (4.0%). In conclusion, adding an itching item to the EQ-5D-3L provides some additional information, however, the added value is small, whereas adding a cognition item improved the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L in our sample and should be considered when assessing HRQL in adult patients with intermediate burns.

Health care is undergoing a profound technological and digital transformation and has become increasingly complex. It is important for burns professionals and researchers to adapt to these developments which may require new ways of thinking and subsequent new strategies. As Einstein has put it: "We must learn to see the world anew." The relatively new scientific discipline "Complexity science" can give more direction to this and is the metaphorical open door that should not go unnoticed in view of the burn care of the future. Complexity science studies "why the whole is more than the sum of the parts." It studies how multiple separate components interact with each other and their environment and how these interactions lead to "behavior of the system." Biological systems are always part of smaller and larger systems and exhibit the behavior of adaptivity, hence the name complex adaptive systems. From the perspective of complexity science, a severe burn injury is an extreme disruption of the "human body system." But this disruption also applies to the systems at the organ and cellular levels. All these systems follow the principles of complex systems. Awareness of the scaling process at multilevel helps to understand and manage the complex situation when dealing with severe burn cases. This paper aims to create awareness of the concept of complexity and to demonstrate the value and possibilities of complexity science methods and tools for the future of burn care through examples from preclinical, clinical, and organizational perspectives in burn care., Numerical Analysis

Health care is undergoing a profound technological and digital transformation and has become increasingly complex. It is important for burns professionals and researchers to adapt to these developments which may require new ways of thinking and subsequent new strategies. As Einstein has put it: "We must learn to see the world anew." The relatively new scientific discipline "Complexity science" can give more direction to this and is the metaphorical open door that should not go unnoticed in view of the burn care of the future. Complexity science studies "why the whole is more than the sum of the parts." It studies how multiple separate components interact with each other and their environment and how these interactions lead to "behavior of the system." Biological systems are always part of smaller and larger systems and exhibit the behavior of adaptivity, hence the name complex adaptive systems. From the perspective of complexity science, a severe burn injury is an extreme disruption of the "human body system." But this disruption also applies to the systems at the organ and cellular levels. All these systems follow the principles of complex systems. Awareness of the scaling process at multilevel helps to understand and manage the complex situation when dealing with severe burn cases. This paper aims to create awareness of the concept of complexity and to demonstrate the value and possibilities of complexity science methods and tools for the future of burn care through examples from preclinical, clinical, and organizational perspectives in burn care.

Background: Burn care is centralized in highly specialized burn centers in Europe. These centers are of limited capacity and may be overwhelmed by a sudden surge in case of a burn mass casualty incident. Prior incidents in Europe and abroad have sustained high standards of care through well-orchestrated responses to share the burden of care in several burn centers. A burn mass casualty incident in Romania in 2015 sparked an initiative to strengthen the existing EU mechanisms. This paper aims to provide insight into developing a response plan for burn mass casualties within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Methods: The European Burns Association drafted medical guidelines for burn mass casualty incidents based on a literature review and an in-depth analysis of the Romanian incident. An online questionnaire surveyed European burn centers and EU States for burn mass casualty preparedness. Results: The Romanian burn mass casualty in 2015 highlighted the lack of a burn-specific mechanism, leading to the late onset of international transfers. In Europe, 71% of respondents had existing mass casualty response plans, though only 35% reported having a burn-specific plan. A burns response plan for burn mass casualties was developed and adopted as a Commission staff working document in preparation for further implementation. The plan builds on the existing Union Civil Protection Mechanism framework and the standards of the WHO Emergency Medical Teams initiative to provide 1) burn assessment teams for specialized in-hospital triage of patients, 2) specialized burn care across European burn centers, and 3) medevac capacities from participating states. Conclusion: The European burn mass casualty response plan could enable the delivery of high-level burn care in the face of an overwhelming incident in an affected European country. Further steps for integration and implementation of the plan within the Union Civil Protection Mechanism framework are needed.

Background: The primary aim was to determine to what extent referral and admission of burn patients to a hospital with or without a burn center was in line with the EMSB referral criteria. Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Burn patients admitted from 2014 to 2018 to a hospital in the Southwest Netherland trauma region and Network Emergency Care Brabant were included in this study. Outcome measures were the adherence to the EMSB referral criteria. Results: A total of 1790 patients were included, of whom 951 patients were primarily presented to a non-burn center. Of these patients, 666 (70.0%) were managed according to the referral criteria; 263 (27.7%) were appropriately not referred, 403 (42.4%) were appropriately referred. Twenty (2.1%) were overtransferred, and 265 (27.9%) undertransferred. In 1213 patients treated at a burn center 1119 (92.3%) met the referral criteria. Adherence was lowest for electrical (N = 4; 14.3%) and chemical burns (N = 16; 42.1%), and was highest in ‘children ≥5% total body surface area (TBSA) burned’ (N = 109; 83.2%). Conclusion: The overall adherence to the referral criteria of patients presented to a non-burn center was fairly high. However, approximately 25% was not transferred to a burn center while meeting the criteria. Most improvement for individual criteria can be achieved in patients with electrical and chemical burns.

Long-term scar formation is an important adverse consequence in children with burns, however, information regarding scar quality in the long-term is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated scar quality and its predictors in children with burns 5–7 years after injury. Parents of children with mild/intermediate burns (≤10% total body surface area burned), and of children with severe burns (>10% burned) completed the patient scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS 2.0) for their children's—in their opinion—worst scar 5–7 years post-burn. Outcomes and predictive factors of scar quality were studied, and, for children with severe burns, POSAS parent scores were compared with observer scores. We included 103 children with mild/intermediate burns and 28 with severe burns (response rate: 51%). Most children (87%) had scars that differed from normal skin, with most differences reported for colour, and least for pain. Except for colour, children with severe burns had significantly higher scores (difference 0–2 points) on all scar characteristics (representing poorer scar quality) compared with children with mild/intermediate burns. Parent POSAS scores were on average 2.0–2.6 points higher compared to observer scores. Number of surgeries predicted both the mean POSAS and the mean overall opinion of a scar. In conclusion, 5–7 years post-burn, the scar of the majority of children differed from normal skin, especially on the characteristic colour. The uncovered insights are useful in counselling of children and their parents on expectations of the final outcome of their (children's) scar(s), and help in further targeting scar prevention strategies for the individual child.