Air-fluidized therapy in the treatment of severe burns: A retrospective study from a burn intensive care unit in Austria |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Institute of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Polish Academy of Sciences, 30-059 Cracow, 25 Reymonta Street, Poland;2. Laboratory of Surface Engineering and Tribology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland;3. CHIRMED-Manufacturer of Surgical and Medical Instruments, 8a Mstowska Street, 42-240, Rudniki, Poland;4. JOANNEUM RESEARCH –Materials, Institute for Surface Technologies and Photonics, Niklasdorf, Austria;1. Aerospace Division, DST Group, 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend, Victoria 3207, Australia;2. CHESS, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionAir-fluidized therapy (AFT) has long been used in the treatment of severe burns. In patients with extensive burns involving the posterior trunk, we aim to keep affected posterior areas dry and to postpone their treatment, initially applying available split-thickness skin grafts in functionally more important regions. We retrospectively assessed the impact of AFT on the survival of patients treated in the burn intensive care unit (ICU) of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, between 2003 and 2016.MethodsThis retrospective single-center study included patients aged ≥18 years with burned total body surface area (TBSA) ≥20% and IIb–III° thermal injuries on the posterior trunk who received AFT. Survival rates were compared with those predicted by the abbreviated burn severity index (ABSI). Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were analyzed.ResultsSeventy-five of 110 patients with posterior trunk burns received AFT. Their survival rate exceeded that predicted by the ABSI score (mean ABSI, 10.0 ± 2.0; 73.3% (95% CI: 62-83%) survival rate vs. 20-40% predicted; p < 0.0001); no such difference was observed in the non-AFT group (mean, 8.8 ± 1.9; 65.7% (95% CI: 48-81%) survival rate vs. 50-70% predicted). Patients receiving AFT had significantly greater TBSA (median, 50% (35–60) vs. 30% (25–45) and longer ICU stays (median, 63 (36–92) vs. 18 (9–52) days; both p < 0.0001). Fifty-one (68.0%) patients in the AFT group and 26 (74.3%) patients in the non-AFT group underwent posterior trunk surgery (p = 0.66) a median of 16 (10–26) and 5 (2.5–9.5) days, respectively, after admission (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsPatients receiving AFT had significantly better survival than predicted by ABSI score in contrast to patients not receiving AFT although burn injuries in this group were more severe (greater TBSA, higher ABSI). As intensive care was similar in these groups aside from AFT, the better survival could be attributed to this additional therapy. |
| |
| Keywords: | Burn posterior trunk air-fluidized therapy outcome |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
