Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries
-
The burn trauma is multifactorial and involves pathophysiologic processes of all of the body's systems. The impact it could have on a person's life includes impairments on their esthetic appearance, interpersonal relationships, psychological, social and physical functioning. ⋯ Currently, a shift is afoot from defining good health care as merely the reduction of morbidity and mortality to a more holistic approach that involves aspects of Health Related Quality of Life. In this article we aim to present a concise review of the relevant literature and relevant topics pertaining Health Related Quality of Life and burn.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Three-dimensional digitalized virtual planning for retrograde sural neurovascular island flaps: a comparative study.
The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness and safety of three-dimensional (3D) digitalized planning for the sural neurovascular island flap in repair of soft tissue defects in the ankle and foot. ⋯ Therapeutic III.
-
Hydrotherapy is widely used in burns management however there are risks associated with its use, in particular cross-infection. Data regarding indications and techniques in common use is deficient. This study aimed to investigate hydrotherapy practices in the UK and Ireland. ⋯ Hydrotherapy is used nationwide, however considerable variation in practice exists. One area worthy of further consideration is the need for appropriate standards of infection control.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A comparison of two smartphone applications and the validation of smartphone applications as tools for fluid calculation for burns resuscitation.
We conducted a randomised, blinded study to compare the accuracy and perceived usability of two smartphone apps (uBurn(©) and MerseyBurns(©)) and a general purpose electronic calculator for calculating fluid requirements using the Parkland formula. Bespoke software randomly generated simulated clinical data; randomly allocated the sequence of calculation methods; recorded participants' responses and response times; and calculated error magnitude. Participants calculated fluid requirements for nine scenarios (three for each: calculator, uBurn(©), MerseyBurns(©)); then rated ease of use (VAS) and preference (ranking), and made written comments. ⋯ The differences were not found to be significant at the p=0.05 level after using paired samples t-test and a multiple correction was applied manually. Preference ranking followed a similar trend with mean rankings (SD) of 1.85 (0.17), 1.94 (0.74) and 2.18 (0.90) for the calculator, MerseyBurns(©) and uBurn(©) respectively. Again, none of these differences were significant at the p=0.05 level.