Hydrosurgical and conventional debridement of burns: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Tangential excision of burned tissue followed by skin grafting is the cornerstone of burn surgery. Hydrosurgery has become popular for tangential excision, with the hypothesis that enhanced preservation of vital dermal tissue reduces scarring. The aim of this trial was to compare scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement before split-skin grafting.

METHODS

A double-blind randomized within-patient multicentre controlled trial was conducted in patients with burns that required split-skin grafting. One wound area was randomized to hydrosurgical debridement and the other to Weck knife debridement. The primary outcome was scar quality at 12 months, assessed with the observer part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Secondary outcomes included complications, scar quality, colour, pliability, and histological dermal preservation.

RESULTS

Some 137 patients were randomized. At 12 months, scars of the hydrosurgical debrided wounds had a lower POSAS observer total item score (mean 2.42 (95 per cent c.i. 2.26 to 2.59) versus 2.54 (95 per cent c.i. 2.36 to 2.72; P = 0.023)) and overall opinion score (mean 3.08 (95 per cent c.i. 2.88 to 3.28) versus 3.30 (95 per cent c.i. 3.09-3.51); P = 0.006). Patient-reported scar quality and pliability measurements were significantly better for the hydrosurgically debrided wounds. Complication rates did not differ between both treatments. Histologically, significantly more dermis was preserved with hydrosurgery (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

One year after surgery scar quality and pliability was better for hydrosurgically debrided burns, probably owing to enhanced histological preservation of dermis.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Trial NL6085 (NTR6232 (http://www.trialregister.nl)).

Regrafting of the Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor-Site: Is It Beneficial?

Split-thickness skin grafting remains a fundamental treatment for patients with deep burns and other traumatic injuries. Unfortunately, the donor site wound that remains after split skin graft (SSG) harvesting may also cause problems for the patient; they can lead to discomfort and scars with a poor cosmetic outcome. Regrafting of the donor site is one of the methods described to improve donor site healing and scarring. In this report, we describe a case of a 26-year-old woman with a self-inflicted chemical burn (0.5% TBSA) who underwent split skin grafting. During surgery, only part of the donor site was regrafted with split skin graft remnants. This part healed faster and had a better scar quality at 3 months postsurgery. Nevertheless, the appearance and patients' opinion on the regrafted part deteriorated after 12 months. With this case report, we aim to create awareness of the long-term consequences of regrafting, which may differ from short-time results. Patients expected to have poor reepithelialization potential may benefit from regrafting of the SSG on the donor site. But in healthy young individuals, timewise there would be no benefit since it can lead to an aesthetically displeasing result.

Patient-reported scar quality of donor-sites following split-skin grafting in burn patients: Long-term results of a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Skin grafting is the current gold standard for treatment of deeper burns. How patients appraise the donor-site scar is poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of donor-site scars after split skin grafting and identify possible predictors.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were included in a Dutch burn centre during one year. Patient-reported quality of donor-site scars and their worst burn scar was assessed at 12 months using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Mixed model analyses were used to identify predictors of scar quality.

RESULTS

This study included 115 donor-site scars of 72 patients with a mean TBSA burned of 11.2%. The vast majority of the donor-site scars (84.4%) were rated as having at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and the overall opinion on 80.9% of the donor-site scars was that they deviated from normal skin 12 months after surgery. The overall opinion on the donor-site scar was 3.2 ± 2.1 vs. 5.1 ± 2.4 on the burn scar. A younger age, female gender, a darker skin type, and location on the lower leg were predictors of reduced donor-site scar quality. In addition, time to re-epithelization was associated with scar quality.

CONCLUSION

This study provided new insights in long-term scar quality of donor-sites. Donor-site scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the population 12 months after surgery. Results of this study can be used to inform patients on the long-term outcomes of their scars and to tailor preventive or therapeutic treatment options.

Surgical outcomes of testicular prostheses implantation in transgender men with a history of prosthesis extrusion or infection

Background: Testicular prostheses implantation may be used for neoscrotal augmentation in transgender men. In current literature, explantation rates range from 0.6% to 30% and most are a result of infection or extrusion. Information on the surgical path of individuals after prosthesis explantation is scarce. Aim: To assess the frequency and success rate of testicular prosthesis implantation after previous explantation due to infection or extrusion. Methods: All transgender men who underwent testicular prosthesis explantation between January 1991 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from a departmental database. A retrospective chart study was conducted, recording demographics, surgical and prosthesis characteristics, reoperations, and outcomes. Results: A total of 41 transgender men were included who underwent testicular prosthesis explantation in the study time period. Of these, 28 (68%) opted for new prosthesis implantation. Most explanted prosthesis had a volume ≥30cc and were replaced with an equally sized one. The postoperative course was uneventful in 19 out of 28 (68%) individuals. Explantation of one or both prostheses occurred in 7 out of 28 (25%) individuals, because of infection (n = 3, 11%) or extrusion (n = 4, 14%). Patients that experienced complications had more often a history of smoking (p = 0.049). The explantation rate was lower if a smaller or lighter prosthesis was reimplanted (p = 0.020). Discussion: Most patients opt for testicular prosthesis implantation after previous explantation due to extrusion or infection. Explantation rates are higher than after the primary implantation procedure. Results of current study can be used to inform individuals on postoperative outcomes.

Doxepin cream is not effective in reducing itch in burn scar patients: A multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of doxepin hydrochloride 5% cream on reducing pruritus in burn scar patients compared to a placebo cream.

METHOD

We conducted a multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical placebo-controlled crossover trial in which burn patients ≥18 years with an itch intensity ≥3 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were randomized between a doxepin-placebo or placebo-doxepin treatment protocol. Patients used each cream during two weeks with a wash-out period of one week in between. Primary outcome was change in itch intensity in two weeks' time using the VAS. Secondary outcome included the impact of itch (Burn Itch Questionnaire). Other parameters were the use of hydrating cream, silicon treatment, pressure garments, and other antipruritic medication.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were included. The change in itch intensity (VAS) was not different during the doxepin and placebo period (p=0.994); neither the doxepin cream nor placebo cream reduced itch intensity. However, based on the Burn Itch Questionnaire, we observed a statistically significant decrease in itch intensity and improvement in impact scores in both treatment groups, but no difference in the degree of reduction between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Doxepin cream was not effective in reducing pruritus in our burn patient study population.

Application of hydrosurgery for burn wound debridement: An 8-year cohort analysis

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, the Versajet™ hydrosurgery system has become popular as a tool for tangential excision in burn surgery. Although hydrosurgery is thought to be a more precise and controlled manner for burn debridement prior to skin grafting, burn specialists decide individually whether hydrosurgery should be applied in a specific patient or not. The aim of this study was to gain insight in which patients hydrosurgery is used in specialized burn care in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in all patients admitted to a Dutch burn centre between 2009 and 2016. All patients with burns that underwent surgical debridement were included. Data were collected using the national Dutch Burn Repository R3.

RESULTS

Data of 2113 eligible patients were assessed. These patients were treated with hydrosurgical debridement (23.9%), conventional debridement (47.7%) or a combination of these techniques (28.3%). Independent predictors for the use of hydrosurgery were a younger age, scalds, a larger percentage of total body surface area (TBSA) burned, head and neck burns and arm burns. Differences in surgical management and clinical outcome were found between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of hydrosurgery for burn wound debridement prior to skin grafting is substantial. Independent predictors for the use of hydrosurgery were mainly burn related and consisted of a younger age, scalds, a larger TBSA burned, and burns on irregularly contoured body areas. Randomized studies addressing scar quality are needed to open new perspectives on the potential benefits of hydrosurgical burn wound debridement.

Long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Deep dermal burns require tangential excision of non-viable tissue and skin grafting to improve wound healing and burn-scar quality. Tangential excision is conventionally performed with a knife, but during the last decade hydrosurgery has become popular as a new tool for tangential excision. Hydrosurgery is generally thought to be a more precise and controlled manner of burn debridement leading to preservation of viable tissue and, therefore, better scar quality. Although scar quality is considered to be one of the most important outcomes in burn surgery today, no randomized controlled study has compared the effect of these two common treatment modalities with scar quality as a primary outcome. The aim of this study is, therefore, to compare long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional tangential excision in deep dermal burns.

Methods/design

A multicenter, randomized, intra-patient, controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centers of Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen. All patients with deep dermal burns that require excision and grafting are eligible. Exclusion criteria are: a burn wound < 50 cm², total body surface area (TBSA) burned > 30%, full-thickness burns, chemical or electrical burns, infected wounds (clinical symptoms in combination with positive wound swabs), insufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language, patients that are unlikely to comply with requirements of the study protocol and follow-up, and patients who are (temporarily) incompetent because of sedation and/or intubation. A total of 137 patients will be included. Comparable wound areas A and B will be appointed, randomized and either excised conventionally with a knife or with the hydrosurgery system. The primary outcome is scar quality measured by the observer score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS); a subjective scar-assessment instrument, consisting of two separate six-item scales (observer and patient) that are both scored on a 10-point rating scale.

Discussion

This study will contribute to the optimal surgical treatment of patients with deep dermal burn wounds.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register, NTR6232. Registered on 23 January 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2599-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The pedicled internal pudendal artery perforator (PIPAP) flap for ischial pressure sore reconstruction: Technique and long-term outcome of a cohort study

BACKGROUND

The ischial region is the site most affected by pressure sores and has the highest recurrence and complication rates compared to other affected sites. We developed a practical and safe pedicled flap for reconstruction of ischial pressure sores based on the rich available perforators from the internal pudendal artery and the surplus of skin at the infragluteal fold.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in all patients who underwent ischial pressure ulcer reconstruction using the PIPAP flap between March 2010 and March 2017. The skin flap was designed along the gluteal fold. The skin perforators of the pudendal artery were marked with a Doppler probe in the medial region of the gluteal fold. Surgery was performed in the jackknife position, and flaps were elevated in the suprafascial plane. Patients were assessed for minor (requiring no additional surgery) and major complications (requiring additional surgery).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (34 flaps) were identified. The median follow-up period was 38 months (IQR 37). Primary closure of the donor-site was achieved in all procedures, only one flap required muscle flap transposition in order to fill the dead space. The mean operating time was 60 ± 21 minutes. In six flaps (9%) wound healing problems were noted that did not require an additional operative procedure. Among the nine flaps (27%) that required a second procedure, 3 (9%) were necessary due to recurrent ulcers.

CONCLUSIONS

The PIPAP flap is a safe and reliable alternative for ischial pressure sore reconstruction, certainly when compared to available techniques. Moreover, it has significant advantages over other techniques including minimal donor-site morbidity, preservation of posterior thigh skin, buttock-line integrity and reliable vascularity.

[Determining depth of burns using laser Doppler imaging]

Early accurate assessment of burn depth is important to determine the optimal treatment of burns (conservative versus surgery). Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is a technique that allows accurate measurement of burn depth by measuring dermal perfusion. Although it has been demonstrated that LDI led to faster decisions as to whether or not to operate, this has not lead to shorter wound healing time or cost savings in Dutch burn care. LDI is used in all Dutch burn centres. In case of doubt about the depth of a burn in primary or secondary care, referral to a burn centre is advisable.