The ABA pain guidelines were developed 14 years ago and have not been revised despite evolution in the practice of burn care. A sub-committee of the American Burn Association’s Committee on the Organization and Delivery of Burn Care was created to revise the adult pain guidelines. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords “burn pain,” “treatment,” and “assessment.” Selected references were also used from the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by two members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine—Levels of Evidence. We then met as a group to determine expert consensus on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the current knowledge and determined research questions that would aid in providing better recommendations for optimal pain management of the burn patient. The literature search produced 189 papers, 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature 151 references were included, totaling 246 papers being analyzed. Following this literature review, a meeting to establish expert consensus was held and 20 guidelines established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid medications, nonopioid medications, regional anesthesia, and nonpharmacologic treatments. There is increasing research on pain management modalities, but available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. We call for more burn specific research into modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control.

No abstract

No abstract

To better understand trends in burn treatment patterns related to definitive closure, this study sought benchmark real-world survey data with national data contained within the National Burn Repository version 8.0 (NBR v8.0) across key burn center practice patterns, resource utilization, and clinical outcomes. A survey, administered to a representative sample of US burn surgeons, collected information across several domains: burn center characteristics; patient characteristics including number of patients and burn size and depth; aggregate number of procedures; resource use such as autograft procedure time, and dressing changes; and costs. Survey findings were aggregated by key outcomes (number of procedures, costs) nationally and regionally. Aggregated burn center data were also compared to the NBR to identify trends relative to current treatment patterns. Benchmarking survey results against the NBR v8.0 demonstrated shifts in burn center patient mix, with more severe cases being seen in the inpatient setting and less severe burns moving to the outpatient setting. An overall reduction in the number of autograft procedures was observed compared to NBR v8.0, and time efficiencies improved as the intervention time per TBSA decreases as TBSA increases. Both nationally and regionally, an increase in costs were observed.The results suggest resource use estimates from NBR v8.0 may be higher than current practices, thus highlighting the importance of improved and timely NBR reporting and further research on burn center standard of care practices. This study demonstrates significant variations in burn center characteristics, practice patterns, and resource utilization thus increasing our understanding of burn center operations and behavior.

The use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for resuscitation after burn injury has been reported in small case studies. Conventional TEE is invasive and often requires a subspecialist with a high level of training. The authors report a series of surgeon-performed hemodynamic TEE with an indwelling, less bulky, user-friendly probe. Records of patients treated in a regional burn center who underwent hemodynamic TEE between October 1, 2012 and May 30, 2014 were reviewed. The clinical course of each patient was recorded. All bedside interpretations were retrospectively reviewed for accuracy by a cardiac anesthesiologist. Eleven patients were included in the study. Median age was 68.5 years (interquartile range, 49.5-79.5). Median burn size was 37% TBSA (interquartile range: 16.3-53%). Seven patients were male, and four suffered inhalation injury. The operator's interpretation matched that of the echocardiography technician and cardiac anesthesiologist in all instances. No complications occurred from probe placement. Four patients underwent hemodynamic TEE to determine volume status during resuscitation. Changes in volume status on echocardiography preceded the eventual changes in urine output and vital signs for one patient. Hemodynamic TEE diagnosed cardiogenic shock and was used to titrate inotropes and vasopressors in seven elderly patients. Hemodynamic TEE is a useful adjunct to manage the burn patient who deviates off the expected course, especially if there is a question of cardiac function or volume status. It is less invasive and can be accurately performed by surgical intensivists when transthoracic echo windows are limited. The role of echocardiography in optimizing routine burn resuscitations needs to be further studied.