| Literature DB >> 35918878 |
Tomasz Korzeniowski1,2, Jerzy Strużyna1,3, Kamil Torres2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate estimation of burn depth is crucial for correct treatment decision making. Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement (ED) may improve clinical assessment of burn depth. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) provides a valuable indicator of burn depth by analyzing microcirculation within tissue beds. This study aimed to evaluate bromelain-based enzymatic debridement combined with laser Doppler imaging and healing of 42 wounds in 19 patients with mixed second- and third-degree thermal burns. MATERIAL AND METHODS We included 42 wounds in 19 patients with mixed deep dermal and full-thickness thermal burns. All patients were treated with eschar-specific removal agent for ED. The perfusion of each wound after ED was assessed using LDI. Healing time was estimated by 2 experienced burn surgeons and marked by the observation of epithelization. The usefulness of the LDI performed after ED in predicting healing time was estimated. The findings were analyzed to determine a cut-off value for LDI that indicates if a burn will heal spontaneously. RESULTS We observed that burn wounds with higher mean perfusion healed faster. The analysis showed a strong relationship between perfusion after ED and healing time (Spearman rank correlation coefficient=-0.803). A mean perfusion greater than 296.89 indicated that the wound could heal spontaneously and does not require skin grafting. CONCLUSIONS LDI examination of an already debrided wound allows for a reliable assessment of perfusion at an early stage of treatment. The use of a safe and effective debridement method in conjunction with a non-invasive diagnostic tool could improve burn management.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35918878 PMCID: PMC9358983 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.936713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Enzymatic debridement procedure (A – preparation of the Nexobrid, B – Nexobrid application, C – occlusive dressing, D – effect of enzymatic debridement).
Figure 2Laser Doppler examination (Periscan PIM 3, Perimed AB, Stockholm, Sweden).
Figure 3Laser Doppler image of the enzymatically debrided forearm burn wound and corresponding clinical photograph.
Characteristic of the study group.
| Demographics | Burn size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age | 35.0 | (5–63) | Average % TBSA | 18.3% | (3–48%) |
| Male | 13 | 68.4% | |||
| Female | 6 | 31.6% |
| ||
| Hand | 16 | 38.1% | |||
|
| Forearm | 12 | 28.6% | ||
| Flame | 13 | 72.2% | Arm | 5 | 11.9% |
| Scald | 2 | 11.1% | Thigh | 4 | 9.5% |
| Cinder | 2 | 11.1% | Leg | 3 | 7.1% |
| Asphalt | 1 | 5.6% | Foot | 1 | 2.4% |
| Electric arc | 1 | 5.6% | Chest | 1 | 2.4% |
Figure 4Relationship between mean PU (perfusion units) and healing time.
Figure 5ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve for mean PU (perfusion units) after enzymatic debridement in predicting the spontaneously healing.
Agreement/diagnostic accuracy between the laser doppler imaging outcome/healing potential category and spontaneous healing/skin grafting.
| No | Flux value | Healing category | Skin grafts | Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 92.59 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | 49.29 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | 19.96 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 4 | 296.89 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 5 | 195.46 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 6 | 193.62 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 7 | 510.4 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 8 | 307.37 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 9 | 120.57 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 10 | 180.69 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 11 | 151.28 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 12 | 165.3 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 13 | 242.98 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 14 | 113.74 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 15 | 107.51 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 16 | 310.01 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 17 | 257.53 | Low potential | No | No |
| 18 | 443.67 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 19 | 407.35 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 20 | 572.98 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 21 | 176.73 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 22 | 240.56 | Low potential | Yes | No |
| 23 | 154.69 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 24 | 108.83 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 25 | 62.25 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 26 | 206.63 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 27 | 193.02 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 28 | 192.63 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 29 | 214.26 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 30 | 144.17 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 31 | 141.94 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 32 | 313.37 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 33 | 199.02 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 34 | 361.59 | High potential | Yes | Yes |
| 35 | 169.89 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 36 | 210.42 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 37 | 430.56 | High potential | No | Yes |
| 38 | 259.78 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 39 | 127.98 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 40 | 213.6 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 41 | 169.61 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
| 42 | 129.67 | Low potential | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|