The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation
-
J Burn Care Rehabil · Sep 1997
Comparative StudyRationale for 'early' percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in patients with burn injuries.
Several investigators have cited the numerous complications that occur with conventional tracheostomies in patients with burn injuries. However, none of these studies included the technique of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy, which has been shown to significantly decrease operative time, cost, perioperative, and long-term sequelae as compared to conventional tracheostomy. A retrospective analysis of 36 patients with burn injuries, from 1400 burn admissions, was conducted to compare conventional tracheostomy versus percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. ⋯ It can be safely performed at the bedside, at one fourth the cost of a conventional tracheostomy. Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy may also benefit the patient with severe burns by decreasing alveolar-arterial oxygen gradients. Improved ventilatory mechanics might allow for a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, thereby decreasing patient morbidity, hospital stay, and cost.
-
J Burn Care Rehabil · Sep 1997
Serum lactate and base deficit suggest inadequate resuscitation of patients with burn injuries: application of a point-of-care laboratory instrument.
Urinary output of 30 to 50 ml/hr and mean arterial pressure of more than 70 mm Hg continue to be the yardsticks by which patients with burn injuries are resuscitated. We designed this prospective, descriptive study to compare these parameters with serial base deficit and serum lactate values, which have been found to be sensitive indicators of adequate fluid resuscitation in trauma patients. The sample group consisted of 53 patients, consecutively admitted to the burn intensive care unit, who had 15% or more total body surface area burns. ⋯ On average, serum lactate and base deficit remained abnormally high during the study period. These new parameters may be used to improve the fidelity with which burn shock resuscitation is undertaken. Further studies of these parameters and how they may be used as endpoints in fluid resuscitation are needed.
-
The subjective assessment of scar appearance is a widely used method in the evaluation of burn outcomes and the efficacy of treatment methods. The purpose of this study is to design a numeric scar-rating scale with better interrater reliability than has previously been reported. The rating scale assesses scar surface, thickness, border height, and color differences between a scar and the adjacent normal skin. ⋯ The raters then rated 10 photographs of different scars, referring to the teaching set of pictures for comparison. The intraclass correlation (interrater reliability) was 0.94, 0.95, 0.90, and 0.85 for scar surface, border height, thickness, and color, respectively. This rating system has proved to be a useful tool for the evaluation of scar surface, thickness, border height, and color.
-
J Burn Care Rehabil · Jul 1997
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialStudy of antibiotic prophylaxis during burn wound debridement in children.
Twenty-three children completed a randomized, prospective, partially blinded study performed to assess the need and effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of burn wound debridement and grafting. Patients with a total body surface area (TBSA) burn less than 35% were randomized to receive cefazolin or placebo. Patients with burns of 35% or more TBSA were randomized to receive cefazolin or targeted antibiotics based on surveillance cultures. ⋯ All receiving cefazolin developed burn wound infection. Quantitative tissue culture was more than 10(5) colony-forming units per gram in all, whereas histologic examination was positive in one. In our patients with less than 35% burn, cefazolin was not necessary, and in those with 35% or more burn, it was not effective.
-
J Burn Care Rehabil · Jul 1997
Comparative StudyMuch ado about nothing: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
The pathogenic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has received a voluminous amount of notoriety. The four major reasons are its morbidity, mortality rate, cost of treatment, and constant appearance in intensive care units. Both Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis (MRSE) account for 82% of our gram-positive wound isolates, whereas the gram-negative account for 34% of all isolates. ⋯ During this period there were 47 gram-negative infections requiring 10 to 15 additional days of hospital stay, with a daily antibiotic cost of $293.40. Costs for MRSA or MRSE are 28% less. Therefore our preoccupation with MRSA or MRSE infections is unwarranted and unsubstantiated.