BackgroundGram negative infection is a major determinant of morbidity and survival. Traditional teaching suggests that burn wound infections in different centres are caused by differing sets of causative organisms. This study established whether Gram-negative burn wound isolates associated to clinical wound infection differ between burn centres.MethodsStudies investigating adult hospitalised patients (2000–2010) were critically appraised and qualified to a levels of evidence hierarchy. The contribution of bacterial pathogen type, and burn centre to the variance in standardised incidence of Gram-negative burn wound infection was analysed using two-way analysis of variance.Primary Findings Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanni, Enterobacter spp., Proteus spp. and Escherichia coli emerged as the commonest Gram-negative burn wound pathogens. Individual pathogens’ incidence did not differ significantly between burn centres (F (4, 20) = 1.1, p = 0.3797; r2 = 9.84).InterpretationGram-negative infections predominate in burn surgery. This study is the first to establish that burn wound infections do not differ significantly between burn centres. It is the first study to report the pathogens responsible for the majority of Gram-negative infections in these patients. Whilst burn wound infection is not exclusive to these bacteria, it is hoped that reporting the presence of this group of common Gram-negative “target organisms” facilitate clinical practice and target research towards a defined clinical demand.

Topical negative pressure increases quantity and quality of split skin graft take compared to traditional bolster dressings. The advantages are increased in irregularly contoured, technically difficult wounds and suboptimal recipient wound beds where it seems to be the best modality currently available. Large-scale randomized clinical controlled trials remain scanty in all areas of wound dressing research including negative pressure therapy.

No abstract

Introduction Basal cell carcinoma is the most common cancer. Excisional surgery is associated with a high clearance rate, at the expense of significant functional and aesthetic morbidity, especially within the T-zone or for extensive lesions. We report five-year follow-up outcomes for carbon dioxide laser extirpation of cutaneous basal cell carcinoma, assisted by immediate methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy and cost–benefit considerations. Materials and methods Retrospective cohort database analysis of adult patients with biopsy-proven primary cutaneous basal cell carcinoma, completing five years of follow-up. Direct per-lesion cost was compared with conventional wide local excision. Patients with morphoeic basal cell carcinoma were excluded. Results Treated lesions were up to 1% total body surface area and up to 3.8mm (1.38 ± 0.695cm, mean ± standard deviation) in biopsy-proven depth. At the five-year follow-up mark, 93.6% of treated areas remained free of recurrence. Nodular basal cell carcinoma was the most common subtype (41.5%). A mean tumour depth greater than 2 ± 0.872mm was significantly associated with recurrence (Mann–Whitney, p = 0.0487). For a service delivered through the NHS at 2015 prices, we report a 43% saving, equating to a saving of £235 per basal cell carcinoma or a national annualised saving of £70 million by 2025 for the NHS. Conclusion Our results suggest that CO2-assisted photodynamic therapy is non-inferior to excision but may offer better functional and cosmetic preservation at a fraction of the direct like for like cost of operative surgery. Investigation of this method by randomised controlled methodology is warranted.