Abstract American Burn Association guidelines recommend that all pediatric burns be transferred to a burn center if their presenting hospital lacks the necessary personnel or equipment for their care. Our institution often treats small burns (<10% TBSA) in pediatric patients in an ambulatory setting with a non-daily dressing. The aim of this study was to determine if small pediatric burns could be safely managed on an outpatient basis. A retrospective review at a single ABA-verified burn center was conducted, including 742 pediatric patients presenting to the burn evaluation clinic in a three-year period. Post burn day, age, sex, TBSA, burn etiology, body area burned, burn dressing type, outpatient versus inpatient management, reason(s) for admission, and any operative intervention were collected. Overall, the most common burn etiologies were scald (68%), contact (20%), and flame (5%). In this cohort, 14% (101) of patients were admitted upon evaluation to the burn center with a mean TBSA of 9%. The remaining 86% (641) of patients were treated outpatient with a mean TBSA of 3%. Of those who were treated outpatient, 96% (613) successfully completed outpatient care and 4% (28) were subsequently admitted. The patients who were successfully managed in an ambulatory setting had a mean TBSA of 3% whereas the patients who failed outpatient care had a mean TBSA of 4%. The primary reason for subsequent admission of these patients was nutrition optimization (61%). The vast majority of small pediatric burns can be effectively treated on an outpatient basis with a non-daily dressing.

Introduction Hospitalized burn patients meet the criteria for Virchow’s triad (endothelial damage, hypercoagulability, and stasis), predisposing them to venous thromboembolism (VTE). While the disease burden of VTE suggests a need for prevention in this population, unreliable reported VTE rates, costly and complicated prophylaxis regimens, and chemoprophylaxis risks have prevented the establishment of a universal protocol. This paper reviews thromboprophylaxis practices both in the literature and at our own institution. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines identifying studies pertaining to VTE chemoprophylaxis in burn patients. Additionally, medical records of patients admitted to an American Burn Association-verified burn center between June 2015 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, chemoprophylaxis, and presence of VTE defined as either deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Results 38 studies met inclusion criteria. In the 12 studies that reported VTE incidence, rates ranged widely from 0.25 to 47.1%. The two largest retrospective studies (n=33,637 and 36,638) reported a VTE incidence of 0.61% and 0.8% in populations with unknown or inconsistently recorded chemoprophylaxis. Throughout the literature, prevention protocols were mixed, though a trend toward using dose-adjusted subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin based on serum anti-factor Xa level was noted. At our burn center, 1,068 patients met study criteria. At-risk patients received a simple chemoprophylaxis regimen of 5000U of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin every 8 hours. No routine monitoring tests were performed to limit cost. Nine cases of DVT and two cases of PE were identified with an incidence of 0.84% and 0.19%, respectively, and a total VTE incidence of 1.03%. Only one patient developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). No cases of other heparin-associated complications were observed. Conclusion VTE incidence rates reported in the literature are wide-ranging and poorly capture the effect of any one chemoprophylaxis regimen in the burn population. Our center uses a single, safe, and cost-effective protocol effecting a low VTE rate comparable to that of large national retrospective studies.

The use of intermediate skin substitutes between debridement and final autografting is routine for many practitioners. Materials such as xenografts and allografts have been promoted to help with wound coverage before autografting. However, there is limited data for their use in relatively small burn wounds (<10% TBSA). In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of 100 consecutive patients who underwent autografting for burns <10% TBSA at our American Burn Association-verified burn unit in the absence of intermediate skin substitute use. We retrospectively analyzed 100 patients who underwent split thickness skin graft autografting for burns <10% TBSA between November 2017 and June 2019. No patients were treated with intermediate skin substitutes. Analysis included basic demographics, comorbidities, TBSA burned, mechanism of burn, time to grafting, if grafting was performed in a single procedure or staged, graft loss (>50% graft failure), and time to complete healing (no further wound care required). Twelve patients (12%) had unpredictable graft beds, and their procedure was staged. These patients underwent surgical debridement and were dressed in antimicrobial dressing for an average of 5 days before autografting. No patients had intermediate skin substitutes between procedures. Eighty-eight patients (88%) were debrided and grafted in a single stage. In the staged group, there was a 0% rate of graft failure compared with 9.1% rate of graft failure in the primarily grafted group (P = .004). There was a similar length of stay and time to complete healing in the staged group and primarily grafted group (P = .496 and P = .571). There was a significantly shorter time from injury to first procedure between the staged group and the primarily grafted group (8.7 days and 13.5 days, P = .014). In the eight instances of graft failure, infection or inadequate debridement was the cause. Seven of these eight cases required further surgical intervention. Intermediate skin substitutes are an unnecessary step in grafting small burns. These add only complexity and cost to patient care. Many patients can be debrided and grafted in a single stage. Debridement alone with delayed grafting is a highly effective surgical method when the wound bed is not suitable for immediate grafting. The use of intermediate skin substitutes in small burns requires further investigation as this study finds low benefit for this product.

Introduction American Burn Association guidelines recommend that all pediatric burns be transferred to a burn center if their presenting hospital lacks the necessary personnel or equipment for their care. Our institution often treats small (< 10% TBSA) burns in pediatric patients as outpatients with a non-daily dressing. The aim of this study was to determine if small pediatric burns could be managed in an outpatient manner and risk factors for failure. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted from July 2016 to July 2019 at a single ABA-verified burn center. All patients under the age of 18 who presented for evaluation were included. Post burn day, age, sex, TBSA, burn etiology, body area burned, burn dressing type, outpatient versus inpatient management, reason(s) for admission, and any operative intervention were collected. Results In total, 742 patients were included in our cohort (Table 1). The most common burn etiologies were scald (68%), contact (20%), and flame (5%). From initial presentation, 101 patients (14%), mean TBSA 9%, were admitted to the burn unit and 641 patients (86%), mean TBSA 3%, were treated outpatient. Of those, 613 (96%) were treated entirely outpatient and 28 (4%) were admitted at a later date. There were no significant differences in age (p=0.6) nor gender distribution between those who were successfully treated outpatient and those who failed. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in TBSA between the patients who were treated successfully as outpatients (3±2%) versus those who failed outpatient care (4±3%). The primary reason for admission of these patients was nutrition optimization (61%). Conclusions The vast majority of small pediatric burns can be treated as an outpatient with a non-daily dressing with good results. Over 80% of pediatric patients seen in our clinic were successfully managed in this manner. As suspected, when the burns are larger in size (>4% TBSA) there is a potential increased risk for admission especially with regards to poor PO intake, so this requires close monitoring and family education. Applicability of Research to Practice Pediatric patients with small burns can be safely managed in an outpatient setting with a non-daily dressing. Those who fail will most likely fail from poor PO intake at home.

Introduction The use of intermediate skin substitutes between debridement and final autografting is routine for many practitioners. Materials such as xenografts and allografts have been promoted to help with wound coverage before autografting. However there is limited data for their use in relatively small burn wounds (< 10% total body surface area, TBSA). In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of one hundred consecutive patients who underwent autografting for burns < 10% TBSA at our ABA verified burn unit in the absence of intermediate skin substitute use. Methods We retrospectively analyzed one hundred patients who underwent split thickness skin graft autografting for burns < 10% TBSA between November 2017 and June 2019. No patients were treated with intermediate skin substitutes. Analysis included basic demographics, comorbidities, TBSA burned, mechanism of burn, time to grafting, if grafting was performed in a single procedure or staged, graft loss (>50% graft failure), and time to complete healing (no further wound care required). Results Twelve patients (12%) had unpredictable graft beds and their procedure was staged. These patients underwent surgical debridement and were dressed in antimicrobial dressing for an average of 5 days before autografting. No patients had intermediate skin substitutes between procedures. Eighty-eight patients (88%) were debrided and grafted in a single stage. In the staged group, there was a 0% rate of graft failure compared to 9.1% rate of graft failure in the primarily grafted group (p=0.004). There was a similar length of stay and time to complete healing in the staged group and primarily grafted group (p=0.496 and p=0.571). There was a significantly shorter time from injury to first procedure between the staged group and the primarily grafted group (8.7 days and 13.5 days, p=0.014). Many of the patients with these small burns were first managed outpatient and then brought in for autografting leading to a longer time from injury to surgery; while the staged group often presented with wounds that appeared infected and required urgent debridement. In the eight instances of graft failure, infection or inadequate debridement was the cause. Seven of these eight cases required further surgical intervention. Conclusions Intermediate skin substitutes are an unnecessary step in grafting small burns. These add only complexity and cost to patient care. Many patients can be debrided and grafted in a single stage. Debridement alone with delayed grafting is a highly effective surgical method when the wound bed is not suitable for immediate grafting. Applicability of Research to Practice The use of intermediate skin substitutes in small burns requires further investigation as this study finds low benefit for this product.