Dermal substitutes are increasingly becoming an essential part of the burn care strategy. During the acute phase of burn treatment, dermal substitutes improve functional and cosmetic results long-term and thus increase quality of life. In the chronic wound setting, dermal substitutes are used to reconstruct and improve burn scars and other defects. Despite some successes in the use of dermal substitutes there are more needs and requirements to further improve outcomes and hence further research is required not only to strengthen scientific evidence regarding their effects but also to develop new technology and products. Dermal substitutes also emerge as pivotal research strategies to develop adequate scaffolds for stem cells, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications to obtain long-lasting and scarless artificial skin. This review discusses status-quo of dermal substitutes and novel strategies in the use of dermal substitutes with a focus on burn care.

Objective To review low-voltage versus high-voltage electrical burn complications in adults, and to identify novel areas that are not recognized to improve outcomes. Methods An extensive literature search on electrical burn injuries was performed using OVID Medline, PubMed and EMBASE databases from 1946–2015. Studies relating to outcomes of electrical injury in the adult population (≥18 years of age) were included in the study. Results Forty-one single-institution publications with a total of 5485 electrical injury patients were identified and included in the present study. 18.0% of these patients were low-voltage injuries (LVI), 38.3% high-voltage injuries (HVI) and 43.7% with voltage not otherwise specified (NOS). Forty-four percent of studies did not characterize outcomes according to low versus high-voltage injuries. Reported outcomes include surgical, medical, post-traumatic, and other (long-term/psychological/rehabilitative), all of which report greater incidence rates in HVI compared to LVI. Only two studies report on psychological outcomes such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Mortality from electrical injuries are 2.6% in LVI, 5.2% in HVI and 3.7% in NOS. Coroner’s reports reveal a ratio of 2.4:1 for deaths caused by low-voltage injury compared to high voltage-injury. Conclusions High-voltage injuries lead to greater morbidity and mortality than low-voltage injuries. However, the results of the coroner’s reports suggest that immediate mortality from low-voltage injury may be underestimated. Furthermore, based on the data of this analysis we conclude that the majority of studies report electrical injury outcomes, however, the majority of them do not analyze complications by low versus high voltage and often lack long-term psychological and rehabilitation outcomes post-electrical injury indicating that a variety of central aspects are not being evaluated or assessed.

Thermally injured patients experience tremendous pain from the moment of injury to months or years after their discharge from the hospital. Pain is therefore a critical component of proper management of burns. Although the importance of pain is well recognized, it is often undertreated. Acute uncontrolled pain has been shown to increase the incidence of mental health disorders and increase the incidence of suicide after discharge. Long-term poor pain control leads to an increase in the incidence of persistent pain. Most burn centers have used opioids as the mainstay analgesic, but recently, the significant side effects of opioids have led to the implementation of new and combined therapeutics. Pharmacological agents such as gabapentin, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine have all been suggested as adjuncts to opioids in the treatment of burn pain. Nonpharmacological therapies such as hypnosis, virtual reality devices, and behavioral therapy are also essential adjuncts to current medications. This review aims at identifying the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological options for optimal pain management in the adult burn population.