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.

The laser Doppler imager is used in cases of indeterminate burn depth to accurately predict wound healing time at an early stage. The laser Doppler imager classifies burns into three estimated healing potentials as follows: high, <14 days; intermediate, 14-21 days; and low, >21 days. At this time, the relationship between these healing potentials and long-term scar quality is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term scar quality of burns with three distinct healing potentials. The secondary objectives were to compare treatment strategies in intermediate wounds, to study the effect of the timing of surgery on low healing potential wounds and to identify predictors of reduced scar quality. Hence, in a prospective cohort study, scar quality was determined in patients whose burns were assessed with laser Doppler imaging. Scar Quality was assessed with objective and subjective measurement tools, including overall scar quality (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) as a primary outcome and color and elasticity parameters. A total of 141 patients (>19 months postburn) with 216 scars were included. Wounds with high and intermediate healing potential did not significantly differ regarding scar quality. Wounds with a low healing potential had a significantly lower scar quality. Analysis of 76 surgically treated low healing potential wounds showed no significant differences in the primary outcome regarding the timing of surgery (≤14 days vs. >14). Predictors of reduced long-term scar quality were darker skin type and multiple surgeries. In conclusion, scar quality was strongly related to the healing potential category. Scar quality was very similar in high and intermediate healing potential wounds. No positive effects were found on scar quality or on healing time in surgically treated wounds with intermediate healing potential, advocating a conservative approach. Further studies should focus on the optimal timing of surgery in low healing potential wounds.

There were no external sources of funding for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare with regard to the manuscript or its content.