No abstract

No abstract

D ear Editor,Blood is a valuable resource that has specific guidance related to its safe and effective use (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2015). In an effort to reduce the number of blood transfusions in our burn patients, we audited and changed our practice guidelines, resulting in a 100% reduction of unnecessary crossmatching investigations, thus increasing resources and reducing costs. Our previous practice guidelines recommended Group and Save (i.e., determining patient blood group [ABO and RhD] and screening for atypical antibodies) as a minimum for all burn patients undergoing operative treatment regardless of burn size. For patients with burns on more than 10% of their body requiring operative treatment, we routinely crossmatched two units of red blood cells and other blood products as considered necessary based on individual patient circumstances.Since implementing these guidelines, we have changed the way we treat burns. We now routinely perform enzymatic debridement (ED) of burns. Enzymatic debridement involves the application of a debriding enzyme in the form of a gel dressing. In many cases, ED can be performed outside of the operating room. The procedure is performed under local, regional, or general anesthesia as needed, and patients tolerate this procedure very well.We retrospectively reviewed 47 patients who were referred to our unit with burns on more than 10% of their total body surface area (TBSA). The patients were grouped according to the percentage of TBSA of their burns: 10%-20% (n = 31), 20%-30% (n = 10), and 30%-40% (n = 6). A total of 12 patients underwent ED, 32 underwent surgical debridement, and three were managed conservatively. Within the ED group, there were eight patients in the 10%-20% TBSA group and four patients in the 20%-30% TBSA group. None of these patients (n = 12) required a blood transfusion. Within the surgical debridement group, there were 20 patients in the 10%-20% TBSA group and

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionLimb amputation can cause residual limb pain (RLP) and/or phantom limb pain (PLP). Although targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) was initially introduced to facilitate the control of prosthetic limbs, it has been noted that these patients experience less pain and improved prosthetic functional outcomes. As a result, the use of TMR in managing neuroma‐related RLP is increasing. The aim of this review is to assess the quality and strength of the evidence supporting the effectiveness of TMR in managing amputation‐related pain.MethodsFive different databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were searched from inception to March 2022. The protocol for this systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020218242). To be included, studies needed to compare pre‐ and postoperative pain outcomes or different techniques for adult patients who underwent TMR following amputation. Eligible studies also needed to use patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMS) and be clinical trials or observational studies published in English. Excluded studies were case reports, case series, reviews, proof of concept studies, and conference proceedings. A meta‐analysis was performed on studies that had similar intervention and control groups to examine treatment effects using a random‐effects model. Studies were weighted using the inverse variance method, and a statistically significant p‐value was considered to be less than or equal to 0.05.ResultsThis review included five studies for qualitative analysis and four studies for quantitative analysis. Reviewed studies enrolled a total of 127 patients. The TMR group was compared with standard treatment at 12 months follow‐up. The TMR group showed significantly better PLP as assessed by the numerical rating score RLP, and PLP assessed using Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) also showed significantly lower pain intensity in the TMR group.ConclusionThere is limited evidence of good quality favoring TMR in reducing postamputation PLP and RLP pain compared with standard care. Randomized clinical trials are encouraged to compare the efficacy of different surgical techniques.

Background: A proper preoperative planning is essential to prevent flap failure. However, venous workup for flaps has not been commonly performed or utilized as a preoperative screening tool. A scoping review was conducted to explore preoperative venous system screening, including deep vein thrombosis diagnosis, and its effect on flap survival rate. This review identified existing gaps of knowledge and emphasized potential research areas for future studies. Methods: Two independent reviewers searched 3 electronic databases from inception to September 2020. Retrieved appropriate articles were selected systematically by title, abstract, and full review of the article. Studies were included if they enrolled patients who had thrombophilia or deep venous thrombosis (DVT) preoperatively and had undergone a free flap reconstruction. For eligible studies, the following information was extracted: basic demographics (sex, age, comorbidities), preoperative scans type, free flap type, clotting mode (causes), wound type, and flap survival. Results: Seventeen articles were found eligible for this review. Traumatic aetiology was found in 63 (33.6%) patients, while 124 (66.3%) patients had a non-traumatic aetiology. Preoperative screening for patients with non-traumatic aetiology was reported in 119 patients. In these patients, the flap survived in 107 (89.91%) patients. Four studies investigating patients with traumatic DVT aetiology, 60 patients (out of 63) had a preoperative computed tomography angiography or duplex. Those patients had 100% flap survival rates. Conclusion: Further investigations are required to identify venous thrombosis incidence in patients with non-traumatic thrombosis aetiology as this cohort of patients is at high risk of flap failure. Finally, the prognostic validity of available preoperative screening tools to identify high-risk patients should be assessed, such as imaging techniques, which would include venous duplex scanning, may prevent failure in free flap surgery.

Background NICE recommends that patients undergoing intermediate or minor elective surgery do not need routine coagulation or transfusion blood testing unless they are ASA 3+ or taking anticoagulation mediation, where testing may be considered. Currently there is no guidance for trauma patients. Method We identified all patients that underwent intermediate or minor trauma and orthopaedic surgery within a three-month period from December 2019- February 2020 at the RSCH. We excluded major trauma patients, patients taking anticoagulants and patients with complex admission or past medical history. Computer records were used to identify pre-operative investigations and admission history. Results 843 patients met our inclusion criteria. In total, 92 clotting studies and 200 transfusion samples were taken preoperatively. The majority of tests were for patients undergoing ankle 130/292 (45%) or Tibia/Fibula 54/292 (18%) procedures. This equates to approximately 1168 blood tests per year. Based on the lab cost of £15.97 for a transfusion sample and £18 for a coagulation sample, this is a cost of approximately £19,616 each year on blood testing that is not indicated. Discussion We hope that by presenting these results we will help reduce the unnecessary time and financial burden of routine venipuncture in departments undertaking intermediate and minor surgery.