Many techniques for management of hypertrophic scars and keloids have been proven through extensive use, but few have been supported by prospective studies with adequate control groups. Several new therapies showed good results in small-scale trials, but these have not been repeated in larger trials with long-term follow-up. This article reports a qualitative overview of the available clinical literature by an international panel of experts using standard methods of appraisal. The article provides evidence-based recommendations on prevention and treatment of abnormal scarring and, where studies are insufficient, consensus on best practice. The recommendations focus on the management of hypertrophic scars and keloids, and are internationally applicable in a range of clinical situations. These recommendations support a move to a more evidence-based approach in scar management. This approach highlights a primary role for silicone gel sheeting and intralesional corticosteroids in the management of a wide variety of abnormal scars. The authors concluded that these are the only treatments for which sufficient evidence exists to make evidence-based recommendations. A number of other therapies that are in common use have achieved acceptance by the authors as standard practice. However, it is highly desirable that many standard practices and new emerging therapies undergo large-scale studies with long-term follow-up before being recommended conclusively as alternative therapies for scar management.
To describe the clinical characteristics of postburn scars and determine the independent risk factors specific to these patients. While burns may generate widespread and disfiguring scars and have a dramatic influence on patient quality of life, the prevalence of postburn pathologic scarring is not well documented, and the impact of certain risk factors is poorly understood. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the clinical records of 703 patients (2440 anatomic burn sites) treated at the Turin Burn Outpatient Clinic between January 1994 and May 15, 2006. Prevalence and evolution time of postburn pathologic scarring were analyzed with univariate and multivariate risk factor analysis by sex, age, burn surface and full-thickness area, cause of the burn, wound healing time, type of burn treatment, number of surgical procedures, type of surgery, type of skin graft, and excision and graft timing. Results: Pathologic scarring was diagnosed in 540 patients (77%): 310 had hypertrophic scars (44%); 34, contractures (5%); and 196, hypertrophic-contracted scars (28%). The hypertrophic induction was assessed at a median of 23 days after reepithelialization and lasted 15 months (median). A nomogram, based on the multivariate regression model, showed that female sex, young age, burn sites on the neck and/or upper limbs, multiple surgical procedures, and meshed skin grafts were independent risk factors for postburn pathologic scarring (Dxy 0.30). Conclusion: The identification of the principal risk factors for postburn pathologic scarring not only would be a valuable aid in early risk stratification but also might help in assessing outcomes adjusted for patient risk.
Background Severe burn is a systemic illness often complicated by sepsis. Kidney is one of the organs invariably affected, and proteinuria is a constant clinical finding. We studied the relationships between proteinuria and patient outcome, severity of renal dysfunction and systemic inflammatory state in burns patients who developed sepsisassociated acute renal failure (ARF). We then tested the hypothesis that plasma in these patients induces apoptosis and functional alterations that could account for proteinuria and severity of renal dysfunction in tubular cells and podocytes.
In septic shock burn patients, citrate for CVVHDF was efficient and safe, and superior to heparin for hemorrhagic complications and filter survival. Observed metabolic stability was most likely due to a marked loss of citrate in effluent volume and subsequent low total citrate load for the patient.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.