Daryousch Parvizi1, Lars-Peter Kamolz2, Michael Giretzlehner3, Herbert L Haller4, Maria Trop5, Harald Selig6, Peter Nagele7, David B Lumenta8. 1. Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Research Unit for Tissue Regeneration, Repair and Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: daryousch.parvizi@medunigraz.at. 2. Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Research Unit for Tissue Regeneration, Repair and Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: lars.kamolz@medunigraz.at. 3. Research Unit Medical-Informatics, RISC Software GmbH, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Hagenberg, Austria. Electronic address: michael.giretzlehner@risc.uni-linz.ac.at. 4. Trauma Center Linz, AUVA, Linz, Austria. Electronic address: herbert.haller@utanet.at. 5. Pediatric Burn Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: marija.trop@medunigraz.at. 6. Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Research Unit for Tissue Regeneration, Repair and Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria; Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery with Burn Unit, Eberhard-Karls-University of Tuebingen, BG Trauma Center, Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: selighf@gmail.com. 7. Department of Anaesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA. 8. Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Research Unit for Tissue Regeneration, Repair and Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: david.lumenta@medunigraz.at.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Accurate estimation of burn size is of critical importance, as it is incorporated in every resuscitation formula. The aim of this study was to investigate total burn surface area (TBSA) accuracy among burn specialists, evaluate the potential impact of incorrect evaluation on variations of resultant fluid resuscitation volumes and to discuss future possibilities to estimate or measure TBSA more precisely. METHODS: In a poll during two international burn meetings in 2010 and 2011 demonstrating three pictures of patients with different burn wound patterns and sizes we asked participants to estimate the total surface area burned in percentages. We then calculated resultant fluid volume differences based on established resuscitation formulas. RESULTS: In the polled 80 participants, the estimations for three patients demonstrated the following differences (DIF=MAX-MIN): for patient 1, 2 and 3 they were 22.5 (25-2.5), 16.5 (20-3.5) and 31.5 (40-8.5) %TBSA, respectively. Based on these differences we calculated the volume differences for patients 1,2 and 3, which were 1080ml (Cincinnati Formula), 5280ml (Parkland Formula) and 2016ml (Cincinnati Formula), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis showed high deviations of total body surface area among participants, also resulting in large variations of initial fluid resuscitation volumes. One option to address estimation variances is to perform more accurate assessments; also incorporating new technologies aiding to improve the quality of body surface estimations and related decisions.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate estimation of burn size is of critical importance, as it is incorporated in every resuscitation formula. The aim of this study was to investigate total burn surface area (TBSA) accuracy among burn specialists, evaluate the potential impact of incorrect evaluation on variations of resultant fluid resuscitation volumes and to discuss future possibilities to estimate or measure TBSA more precisely. METHODS: In a poll during two international burn meetings in 2010 and 2011 demonstrating three pictures of patients with different burn wound patterns and sizes we asked participants to estimate the total surface area burned in percentages. We then calculated resultant fluid volume differences based on established resuscitation formulas. RESULTS: In the polled 80 participants, the estimations for three patients demonstrated the following differences (DIF=MAX-MIN): for patient 1, 2 and 3 they were 22.5 (25-2.5), 16.5 (20-3.5) and 31.5 (40-8.5) %TBSA, respectively. Based on these differences we calculated the volume differences for patients 1,2 and 3, which were 1080ml (Cincinnati Formula), 5280ml (Parkland Formula) and 2016ml (Cincinnati Formula), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis showed high deviations of total body surface area among participants, also resulting in large variations of initial fluid resuscitation volumes. One option to address estimation variances is to perform more accurate assessments; also incorporating new technologies aiding to improve the quality of body surface estimations and related decisions.
Authors: Stephanie A Mason; Avery B Nathens; James P Byrne; Alejandro Gonzalez; Rob Fowler; Paul J Karanicolas; Rahim Moineddin; Marc G Jeschke Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Jeff Choi; Advait Patil; Edward Vendrow; Gavin Touponse; Layla Aboukhater; Joseph D Forrester; David A Spain Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 16.681
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: Che Wei Chang; Feipei Lai; Mesakh Christian; Yu Chun Chen; Ching Hsu; Yo Shen Chen; Dun Hao Chang; Tyng Luen Roan; Yen Che Yu Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2021-12-02
Authors: Anders Klingberg; Lee Alan Wallis; Marie Hasselberg; Po-Yin Yen; Sara Caroline Fritzell Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 4.773