BACKGROUND: There exists neither a consensus definition of burn "graft loss" nor a scale with which to grade severity. We introduced an institutional scale in 2014 for quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed all burned patients with graft loss on departmental Morbidity and Mortality reports between July 2014 and July 2016. Graft loss grades were assigned during the course of clinical care per institutional scale. Chronic nonhealing wounds and nonburn wounds were excluded. Data abstracted included demographics, medical history, injury details, surgical procedures, graft loss, and lengths of stay (LOS). Photos of affected areas were graded by two blinded surgeons, and a linear weighted κ was calculated to assess interrater agreement. RESULTS: Graft loss was noted in 50 patients, with 43 remaining after exclusions. Mean age was 50.1 y. The majority were male (58.1%) and African American (41.9%). Smoking (30.2%) and diabetes (27.9%) were prevalent. Total body surface area involvement ranged from 0.5% to 51.0% (11.8 ± 12.3%). Grade I graft loss was documented on one patient (2.3%), Grade II in 15 (34.9%), Grade III in 12 (27.9%), and Grade IV in 15 (34.9%). Reoperation was performed in 20 (46.5%). Hospital LOS was longer than predicted in 38 patients (88.4%). Seven had significant morbidity, including two amputations. Moderate agreement was reached between blinded surgeons (κ = 0.44, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Graft loss is a major source of morbidity in burn patients. In this cohort, reoperation was common and hospital LOS was extended. Use of a grading scale improves dialog among providers and enables improved understanding of risk factors.
BACKGROUND: There exists neither a consensus definition of burn "graft loss" nor a scale with which to grade severity. We introduced an institutional scale in 2014 for quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed all burned patients with graft loss on departmental Morbidity and Mortality reports between July 2014 and July 2016. Graft loss grades were assigned during the course of clinical care per institutional scale. Chronic nonhealing wounds and nonburn wounds were excluded. Data abstracted included demographics, medical history, injury details, surgical procedures, graft loss, and lengths of stay (LOS). Photos of affected areas were graded by two blinded surgeons, and a linear weighted κ was calculated to assess interrater agreement. RESULTS: Graft loss was noted in 50 patients, with 43 remaining after exclusions. Mean age was 50.1 y. The majority were male (58.1%) and African American (41.9%). Smoking (30.2%) and diabetes (27.9%) were prevalent. Total body surface area involvement ranged from 0.5% to 51.0% (11.8 ± 12.3%). Grade I graft loss was documented on one patient (2.3%), Grade II in 15 (34.9%), Grade III in 12 (27.9%), and Grade IV in 15 (34.9%). Reoperation was performed in 20 (46.5%). Hospital LOS was longer than predicted in 38 patients (88.4%). Seven had significant morbidity, including two amputations. Moderate agreement was reached between blinded surgeons (κ = 0.44, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Graft loss is a major source of morbidity in burn patients. In this cohort, reoperation was common and hospital LOS was extended. Use of a grading scale improves dialog among providers and enables improved understanding of risk factors.
Authors: Bonnie C Carney; Mary A Oliver; Metecan Erdi; Liam D Kirkpatrick; Stephen P Tranchina; Selim Rozyyev; John W Keyloun; Michele S Saruwatari; John L Daristotle; Lauren T Moffatt; Peter Kofinas; Anthony D Sandler; Jeffrey W Shupp Journal: Burns Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 2.609