Burn rehabilitation is an essential component of successful patient care. In May 2008, a group of burn rehabilitation clinicians met to discuss the status and future needs of burn rehabilitation. Fifteen topic areas pertinent to clinical burn rehabilitation were addressed. Consensus positions and suggested future research directions regarding the physical aspects of burn rehabilitation are shared.

The figure-of-eight technique is a reliable and valid measurement tool for measuring hand edema. This technique is a more clinically feasible tool than water volumetry in the burn patient population.

Burn rehabilitation has been a part of burn care and treatment for many years. Yet, despite of its longevity, the rehabilitation outcome of patients with severe burns is less than optimal and appears to have leveled off. Patient survival from burn injury is at an all-time high. Burn rehabilitation must progress to the point where physical outcomes parallel survival statistics in terms of improved patient well-being. This position article is a treatise on burn rehabilitation and the state of burn rehabilitation patient outcomes. It describes burn rehabilitation interventions in brief and why a need is felt to bring this issue to the forefront. The article discusses areas for change and the challenges facing burn rehabilitation. Finally, the relegation and acceptance of this responsibility are addressed.

Loss of upper extremity motion caused by axillary burn scar contracture is a major complication of burn injury. Positioning acutely injured patients with axillary burns in positions above 90° of shoulder abduction may improve shoulder motion and minimize scar contracture. However, these positions may increase injury risk to the nerves of the brachial plexus. This study evaluated the occurrence of paresthesias, pain, and positional intolerance in four shoulder abduction positions in healthy adults. Sixty men and women were placed in four randomly assigned shoulder abduction positions for up to 2 hours: 1) 90° with elbow extension (90 ABD); 2) 130° with elbow flexion at 110° (130 ABD); 3) 150° with elbow extension (150 ABD); and 4) 170° with elbow extension (170 ABD). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and every 30 minutes and included the occurrence of upper extremity paresthesias, position comfort/tolerance, and pain. Transient paresthesias, lasting less than 3 minutes, occurred in all test positions in 10 to 37% of the cases. Significantly fewer subjects reported paresthesias in the 90 ABD position compared with the other positions (P < .01). Pain was reported more frequently in the 170° position (68%) compared with the other positions (P < .01). Positioning with the elbow flexed or in terminal extension is not recommended, regardless of the degree of shoulder abduction. Positioning patients in a position of 150° of shoulder abduction was shown to be safe and well tolerated. Consideration of positions above this range should be undertaken cautiously and only with strict monitoring in alert and oriented patients for short time periods.

No abstract