Coronavirus disease 2019 obliged many countries to apply lockdown policies to contain the spread of infection. The restrictions in Israel included limitations on movement, reduction of working capacity and closure of the educational system. The present study focused on patients treated at a referral center for burns in northern Israel. Our goal was to investigate temporal variations in burn injuries during this period. Data was retrospectively extracted from the medical records of burn patients treated at our hospital between March 14, 2020 and April 20, 2020 (i.e., the period of aggravated lockdown). Data from this period was compared to that from paralleling periods between 2017-2019. During the lockdown and paralleling periods, 178 patients were treated for burn injuries, of whom 44% were under 18. Although no restrictions were enforced during the virus outbreak period with regard to seeking medical care, we noticed a decrease in the number of patients admitted to the emergency room for all reasons. Of particular interest was a 66% decrease in the number of adult burn patients (p&0.0001). Meanwhile, among the pediatric population, no significant decrease was observed. Nonetheless, subgroups with higher susceptibility to burn injuries included children aged 2-5 years (56.3% vs 23.8%, p=0.016) and female patients from all pediatric age groups (57.1% vs 25%, p=0.027). These findings may be explained by the presumably busier kitchen and dining areas during the lockdown. Overall, the study results can assist with building a stronger understanding of varying burn injuries, and with developing educational and preventive strategies.

No abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced many countries into lockdowns to limit the spread of infection. Israel’s containment measures included school closures, mobility restrictions, and workforce reductions. Our study evaluated the effect of COVID-19 on the occurrence and patterns of burn injuries. The study data was obtained via retrospective chart review of burn patients treated between March 15, 2020 and April 30, 2020, namely the period of strict national lockdown. This data was compared against data from paralleling periods between 2017 and 2019. A total of 686 patients were treated for burn injuries in the two study periods. Age group analysis revealed an increased ratio of pediatric patients aged 0–3 years during the lockdown (55.91% vs 40.79%, P = .002). In contrast, there were fewer patients presenting with burn injuries in the 7–16 and 17–29 age groups (9.66% vs 3.15%, P = .017; 16.46% vs 7.09%, P = .007, respectively). During both study periods, scald injuries were the most common burn etiology and burn injuries occurred most often at home. This predominance was further pronounced during the lockdown (71.65% vs 58.68%, P = .007; 90.55% vs 74.60%, P = .0001, respectively). The lockdown period underlined the danger faced by pediatric patients in their household environment. This danger was possibly compounded by an improper level of adult supervision as parents transitioned to remote work. These findings can educate us about factors that render burn injuries more likely not only during lockdowns, but also during regular times, thus shaping the development of burn prevention practices.

Dressings used to manage donor site wounds have up to 40% of patients experiencing complications that may cause suboptimal scarring. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a portable electrospun nanofibrous matrix that provides contactless management of donor site wounds compared with standard dressing techniques. This study included adult patients who underwent an excised split-thickness skin graft with a donor site wound area of 10-200 cm 2. Patients were allocated into two groups; i.e., the nanofiber group managed with a nanofibrous polymer-based matrix, and the control group managed using the standard of care such as Jelonet® or Biatain® Ibu dressing. Primary outcomes were postoperative dermal healing efficacy assessed by Draize scores. The time to complete re-epithelialization was also recorded. Secondary outcomes included postoperative adverse events, pain, and infections during the first 21-days and extended 12-month follow-up. The itching and scarring were recorded during the extended follow-up (months 1,3,6,9,12) using Numerical-Analogue-Score and Vancouver scores, respectively. The nanofiber and control groups included 21 and 20 patients, respectively. The Draize dermal irritation scores were significantly lower in the nanofiber vs. control group (Z=-2.509; P=0.028) on the first postoperative day but became similar afterward (Z≥-1.62; P≥0.198). In addition, the average time to re-epithelialization was similar in the nanofiber (17.9±4.4 days) and control group (18.3±4.5 days) (Z=-0.299; P=0.764), so were postoperative adverse events, pain, and infection incidence, itching and scarring. The safety and efficacy of electrospun nanofibrous matrix are similar to standard wound care allowing its use as an alternative donor site dressing following the split-thickness skin graft excision.

No abstract