Systematic review, level III.

No abstract

No abstract

Burn care is traditionally considered expensive care. However, detailed information about the costs of burn care is scarce despite the increased need for this information and the enhanced focus on healthcare cost control. In this study, economic literature on burn care was systematically reviewed to examine the problem of burn-related costs. Cost or economic evaluation studies on burn care that had been published in international peer-reviewed journals from 1950 to 2012 were identified. The methodology of these articles was critically appraised by two reviewers, and cost results were extracted. A total of 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly all of the studies were cost studies (n = 153) with a healthcare perspective (n = 139) from high-income countries (n = 127). Hospital charges were often used as a proxy for costs (n = 44). Three studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. The mean total healthcare cost per burn patient in high-income countries was $88,218 (range $704-$717,306; median $44,024). A wide variety of methodological approaches and cost prices was found. We recommend that cost studies and economic evaluations employ a standard approach to improve the quality and harmonization of economic evaluation studies, optimize comparability, and improve insight into burn care costs and efficiency.

BackgroundIn recent years there has been increasing interest shown in the nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt traumatic injury. The growing use of NOM for blunt abdominal organ injury has been made possible because of the progress made in the quality and availability of the multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scan and the development of minimally invasive intervention options such as angioembolization.AimThe purpose of this review is to describe the changes that have been made over the past decades in the management of blunt trauma to the liver, spleen and kidney.ResultsThe management of blunt abdominal injury has changed considerably. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage as diagnostic modality in the primary survey. MDCT scanning with intravenous contrast is now the gold standard diagnostic modality in hemodynamically stable patients with intra-abdominal fluid detected with FAST. One of the current discussions in the literature is whether a whole body MDCT survey should be implemented in the primary survey. ConclusionsThe progress in imaging techniques has contributed to NOM being currently the treatment of choice for hemodynamically stable patients. Angioembolization can be used as an adjunct to NOM and has increased the success rate to 95%. However, to date many controversies exist about the optimum patient selection for NOM, the proper role of angioembolization in NOM, the best technique and material to use in angioembolization, and the right follow-up strategy of patients sustaining blunt abdominal injury. Conducting a well-designed prospective clinical trial or a Delphi study would be preferable.

Scar formation is an important adverse consequence of burns. How patients appraise their scar quality is often studied shortly after sustaining the injury, but information in the long‐term is scarce. Our aim was, therefore, to evaluate long‐term patient‐reported quality of burn scars. Adults with a burn center admission of ≥1 day between August 2011 and September 2012 were invited to complete a questionnaire on long‐term consequences of burns. We enriched this sample with patients with severe burns (>20% total body surface area [TBSA] burned or TBSA full thickness >5%) treated between January 2010 and March 2013. Self‐reported scar quality was assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Patients completed this scale for their—in their opinion—most severe scar ≥5 years after burns. This study included 251 patients with a mean %TBSA burned of 10%. The vast majority (91.4%) reported at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and 78.9% of the patients’ overall opinion was that their scar deviated from normal skin. Patients with severe burns had higher POSAS scores, representing worse scar quality, than patients with mild/intermediate burns, except for color, which was high in both groups. A longer hospital stay predicted reduced scar quality (both mean POSAS and mean overall opinion of the scar) in multivariate analyses. In addition, female gender was also associated with a poorer overall opinion of the scar. In conclusion, this study provides new insights in long‐term scar quality. Scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the burn population more than 5 years after burns, especially in those with severe burns. Female gender is associated with a poorer patients’ overall opinion of their scar, which may be an indication of gender differences in perception of scar quality after burns.

Prognostic study, level III.

IntroductionThe American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score is among the most commonly used instruments for measuring the outcome of treatment in patients who sustained a complex ankle or hindfoot injury. It combines a clinician-reported and a patient-reported part. A valid Dutch version of this instrument is currently not available. Such a translated and validated instrument would allow objective comparison across hospitals or between patient groups, and with shown validity and reliability it may become a quality of care indicator in future. The main aims of this study are to translate and culturally adapt the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score questionnaire into Dutch according to international guidelines, and to evaluate the measurement properties of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score-Dutch language version (DLV) in patients with a unilateral ankle or hindfoot fracture.Methods and analysisThe design of the study will be a multicentre prospective observational study (case series) in patients who presented to the emergency department with a unilateral ankle or hindfoot fracture or (fracture) dislocation. A research physician or research assistant will complete the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score-DLV based on interview for the subjective part and a physical examination for the objective part. In addition, patients will be asked to complete the Foot Function Index (FFI) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). Descriptive statistics (including floor and ceiling effects), internal consistency, construct validity, reproducibility (ie, test–retest reliability, agreement and smallest detectable change) and responsiveness will be assessed for the AOFAS DLV.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been exempted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) Erasmus MC (Rotterdam, the Netherlands). Each participant will provide written consent to participate and remain anonymised during the study. The results of the study are planned to be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNTR5613. pre-result.