PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Evaluation of burn depth is an essential and difficult step that conditions surgical or non-surgical treatment. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the opportunity to diagnose burn depth only with initial photography of the burn. METHOD: For all patients admitted to our burn unit between January 2002 and March 2008, we performed a retrospective analysis of burn depth based on a photographic evaluation. Blinded photos were submitted to three experienced surgeons who were asked if the burns required a graft or not. The diagnosis done by photography evaluation was then compared to initial diagnosis and treatment. MAIN FINDINGS: Out of 911 patients photography analysed, the photographic evaluation was equivalent to clinical evaluation in 76% of the cases. The sensitivity and specificity of the photographic evaluation were, respectively, 0.77 and 0.75. The main evaluation errors were in intermediate burns (29.6% of errors) and were more often due to overestimation of the depth. In 75% of cases, there was a full agreement between 3 surgeons (683/911). A secondary analysis excluding electrical and chemical injuries showed an improvement of predictability. CONCLUSION: Even though a photographic analysis cannot replace clinical examination, photographic evaluation may be one option to consider for an early distance diagnosis.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Evaluation of burn depth is an essential and difficult step that conditions surgical or non-surgical treatment. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the opportunity to diagnose burn depth only with initial photography of the burn. METHOD: For all patients admitted to our burn unit between January 2002 and March 2008, we performed a retrospective analysis of burn depth based on a photographic evaluation. Blinded photos were submitted to three experienced surgeons who were asked if the burns required a graft or not. The diagnosis done by photography evaluation was then compared to initial diagnosis and treatment. MAIN FINDINGS: Out of 911 patients photography analysed, the photographic evaluation was equivalent to clinical evaluation in 76% of the cases. The sensitivity and specificity of the photographic evaluation were, respectively, 0.77 and 0.75. The main evaluation errors were in intermediate burns (29.6% of errors) and were more often due to overestimation of the depth. In 75% of cases, there was a full agreement between 3 surgeons (683/911). A secondary analysis excluding electrical and chemical injuries showed an improvement of predictability. CONCLUSION: Even though a photographic analysis cannot replace clinical examination, photographic evaluation may be one option to consider for an early distance diagnosis.
Authors: M Guibert; M Chaouat; D Boccara; O Marco; R Lavocat; O Alameri; E Deslandes; C Montlahuc; M Mimoun Journal: Ann Burns Fire Disasters Date: 2016-06-30
Authors: Jeffrey E Thatcher; John J Squiers; Stephen C Kanick; Darlene R King; Yang Lu; Yulin Wang; Rachit Mohan; Eric W Sellke; J Michael DiMaio Journal: Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Nicole C Benjamin; Jong O Lee; William B Norbury; Ludwik K Branski; Paul Wurzer; Carlos J Jimenez; Debra A Benjamin; David N Herndon Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2017 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Kristy Kummerow Broman; Omobolanle O Oyefule; Sharon E Phillips; Rebeccah B Baucom; Michael D Holzman; Kenneth W Sharp; Richard A Pierce; William H Nealon; Benjamin K Poulose Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 6.113