Split-thickness skin grafts remain central to the strategy of burn wound treatment. The dressing used to cover the donor wound site has a significant effect on healing parameters. The purpose of this study was to compare split-thickness skin graft donor site reepithelialization under Xeroform and Jelonet dressings. A dermatome was used to cut two consecutive strips of skin from 25 paired donor sites on the thigh, calf, or back of 19 participants. Standardization of the harvest method was achieved by using the same surgeon to harvest the compared skin graft strips, with attention to consistency of dermatome skin-thickness setting, downward pressure, and angle of dermatome approach. A strip of Xeroform or Jelonet was applied to one of each pair of wounds. Epidermal and dermal thickness was measured from biopsy specimens cut at the midpoint of each split-thickness graft strip. The day of final dressing separation was declared the day of complete donor reepithelialization (healing). The mean healing time for Xeroform and Jelonet was 10.4 +/- 2.6 days (n = 25) and 10.6 +/- 2.8 days (n = 25) (p = 0.76) at sites cut to a mean depth of 0.23 +/- 0.08 mm and 0.23 +/- 0.09 mm (p = 0.89), respectively. There was no correlation between graft thickness and healing time for sites dressed with Xeroform (r = 0.17) or Jelonet (r = 0.02). Donors sites reharvested 10 to 21 days after a prior harvest healed an average of 3.1 days earlier than virgin sites (8.4 +/- 1.6 versus 11.5 +/- 2.6 days, p < 0.001), although reharvested grafts were on average 0.05 mm thicker (p = 0.10). The mean thickness of reepithelialized donor-site epidermis (0.13 +/- 0.04 mm, n = 30) was found to be twice the thickness of virgin epidermis from the same sites (0.06 +/- 0.02 mm, n = 38, p < 0.001). Thirty-six grafts harvested with dermatomes set to cut 8/1000 inch (0.20 mm) deep ranged from 0.12 to 0.42 mm thick, with only eight of these grafts measuring within +/-10 percent of the desired thickness setting. Before donor dressing separation, Xeroform and Jelonet dressings were judged to be more comfortable by nine patients and one patient, respectively, whereas no difference was detected by six patients. The authors now use Xeroform as the preferred donor dressing.

Surgery for both limited range of motion as well as ulnar nerve compression is effective in cases of heterotopic ossification about the elbows of burned patients. Early operative intervention is indicated in progressive disease, particularly ulnar nerve palsy, if soft-tissue quality is adequate. Complications with 25% of elbows suggest that use of olecranon osteotomy for joint access may warrant review.

Strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to either gentamicin or carbenicillin have been noted since their introduction into clinical use. During a 6-month period, twice-weekly cultures were obtained from all patients treated with either gentamicin or carbenicillin and from all patients with a positive culture for P. aeruginosa . Susceptibility testing to gentamicin and carbenicillin and pyocine typing were performed on all isolates. Organisms with a minimal inhibitory concentration greater than 12.5 μg of gentamicin per ml or greater than 100 μg of carbenicillin per ml were defined as resistant. P. aeruginosa was cultured from 238 patients. One patient was initially infected with a gentamicin-resistant isolate. In 11 other patients, serial cultures revealed the emergence of resistance to gentamicin. All but one of these resistant isolates occurred in patients treated with gentamicin. In eight instances the pyocine and/or serological types before and after the change in sensitivity pattern were the same. Gentamicin-resistant P. aeruginosa emerged significantly more often in patients treated with gentamicin than in those who did not receive gentamicin. Carbenicillin-resistant P. aeruginosa emerged in four of 14 patients treated with carbenicillin. Seventeen of the 238 patients were infected de novo with carbenicillin-resistant P. aeruginosa . Carbenicillin-resistant P. aeruginosa emerged significantly more often in patients treated with carbenicillin than in those who did not receive carbenicillin. No evidence was found for in-hospital spread of resistant P. aeruginosa .

No abstract

No abstract

Cultured epithelial autograft (CEA) has been used as an adjunct in burn wound coverage at the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre since 1988, and has been available to all patients admitted with significant burn injuries. During the 5-year period from 1988 to 1992 inclusive, 28 patients treated with CEA survived long enough for assessment. The mean age was 35.3 years with a mean total body surface area burn of 52.2% and a mean total full thickness injury of 42.4%. CEA was applied to wounds covering between 2% and 35% body surface area (BSA; mean 10.4%) after excision to fat or fascia. Most wounds had interim homograft coverage. Preservation of homograft dermis was attempted in three patients at the time of removal without effect. The mean CEA "take" was 26.9% of the grafted area. Eight patients had 50% or greater take and were discharged with between 1 and 19% BSA covered with CEA. Thirteen patients had no take on wounds between 2 and 16% BSA. Overall mortality in burn patients treated at the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre from 1988 to 1992 was not significantly different from 1983 to 1987 with the populations being similar in terms of total BSA burns, age, inhalation injury, and homograft availability. When compared to a matched control population from the preceding 5 years, when CEA was not available, there was no significant difference in duration of hospital stay or number of autograft harvests. However, approximately one more debridement without autograft harvest per CEA patient occurred. Timing and depth of wound excision, interim coverage, type of dressing, and wound microbiology were not found to influence good versus poor take. The anterior trunk and thighs were the best recipient sites. Subjective differences between CEA and meshed autograft were noted. The results show that after 5 years of use, CEA engraftment continues to be unpredictable and inconsistent, and hence, it should be used as only a biologic dressing and experimental adjunct to conventional burn wound coverage with split thickness autograft.

No abstract

No abstract