Eileen Bernal

The ABA pain guidelines were developed 14 years ago and have not been revised despite evolution in the practice of burn care. A sub-committee of the American Burn Association's Committee on the Organization and Delivery of Burn Care was created to revise the adult pain guidelines. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords "burn pain," "treatment," and "assessment." Selected references were also used from the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by two members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence. We then met as a group to determine expert consensus on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the current knowledge and determined research questions that would aid in providing better recommendations for optimal pain management of the burn patient. The literature search produced 189 papers, 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature 151 references were included, totaling 246 papers being analyzed. Following this literature review, a meeting to establish expert consensus was held and 20 guidelines established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid medications, nonopioid medications, regional anesthesia, and nonpharmacologic treatments. There is increasing research on pain management modalities, but available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. We call for more burn specific research into modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control.

The purpose of this guideline is to update the previous guideline by Drs Faucher and Furukawa. 1 To accomplish this, we review the principles of acute pain management in adult burn patients and present a reasonable approach to the management of the complex pain associated with burn injury based on a review of the literature and expert opinion. In addition, we provide suggestions for a research agenda that would yield evidence neccesary for the next iteration of recommendations for the treatment of acute pain associated with burn injury.

BACKGROUND: Facial burns have lasting physical and psychological effects on pediatric patients. Proper management to minimize morbidities challenges reconstructive surgeons. New technologies allowed the development of skin substitutes such as amniotic and chorionic membranes, yet the use of these skin dressings and their impact on burn outcomes have not been sufficiently studied to guide practices. The objective of this study is to report on the outcomes of dehydrated amniotic membrane as a biologic skin dressing in pediatric facial burn injury compared to cadaveric allografts. METHODS: Retrospective review of data collected from our institutional burn registry from 2012 to 2016. The study population included patients younger than 16 years with facial burns. Patients between 2012 and 2014 received cadaveric allografts, whereas during 2015 to 2016 patients received dehydrated human amniotic/chorionic membrane as standard treatment. Demographic characteristics and outcome measures were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Included 30 patients with a mean age of 3.7 years and with an average total body surface area burn of 6.8% (2%-27%). Mean injury severity scores did not significantly differ between both groups, 1.8 in amniotic group versus 2.3 in cadaveric skin group (P > 0.05). There were 4 complications (3 hypertrophic scars and 1 wound infection) in the cadaveric allografts group versus no complications in the amniotic membrane group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Dehydrated amniotic/chorionic membrane wound dressings are a safe alternative to cadaveric allografts in treating pediatric partial thickness facial burns.

Constriction ring syndrome is a congenital anomaly with sometimes devastating consequences. Because of the unknown etiology, treatment is aimed at recovery of function and prevention of the sequelae rather than prevention of the syndrome. This paper aimed to review the theories of the etiology, the features and associated defects, and the operative management of constriction ring syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical documentation can be an underappreciated. Trauma Centers (TCs) are now routinely evaluated for quality performance. TCs with poor documentation may not accurately reflect actual injury burden or comorbidities and can impact accuracy of mortality measures. Markers exist to adjust crude death rates for injury severity: observed over expected deaths (O/E) adjust for injury; Case Mix Index (CMI) reflects disease burden, and Severity of Illness (SOI) measures organ dysfunction. We aim to evaluate the impact of implementing a Clinical Documentation Improvement Program (CDIP) on reported outcomes. METHODS: Review of 2-years of prospectively collected data for trauma patients, during the implementation of CDIP. A two-group prospective observational study design was used to evaluate the pre-implementation and the post-implementation phase of improved clinical documentation. T-test and Chi-Squared were used with significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: In the pre-implementation period, there were 49 deaths out of 1419 (3.45%), while post-implementation period, had 38 deaths out of 1454 (2.61%), (non-significant). There was however, a significant difference between O/E ratios. In the pre-phase, the O/E was 1.36 and 0.70 in the post-phase (p < 0.001). The two groups also differed on CMI with a pre-group mean of 2.48 and a post-group of 2.87 (p < 0.001), indicating higher injury burden in the post-group. SOI started at 2.12 and significantly increased to 2.91, signifying more organ system dysfunction (p < 0.018). CONCLUSION: Improved clinical documentation results in improved accuracy of measures of mortality, injury severity, and comorbidities and a more accurate reflection in O/E mortality ratios, CMI, and SOI.