Coming to Consensus: What Defines Deep Partial Thickness Burn Injuries in Porcine Models?.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Journal of Burn Care & Research. 42(1):98-109, 2021 02 03.PMID: 32835360Institution: MedStar Health Research Institute | MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Firefighters' Burn and Surgical Research Laboratory | Surgery/Burn ServicesForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Burns/cl [Classification] | *Consensus | *Disease Models, Animal | Animals | Humans | SwineYear: 2021ISSN:
  • 1559-047X
Name of journal: Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn AssociationAbstract: Deep partial thickness burns are clinically prevalent and difficult to diagnose. In order to develop methods to assess burn depth and therapies to treat deep partial thickness burns, reliable, accurate animal models are needed. The variety of animal models in the literature and the lack of precise details reported for the experimental procedures makes comparison of research between investigators challenging, and ultimately impacts translation to patients. We sought to compare deep partial thickness porcine burn models from five well-established laboratories. In doing so, we uncovered a lack of consistency in approaches to the evaluation of burn injury depth that was present within and among various models. We then used an iterative process to develop a scoring rubric with an educational component to facilitate burn injury depth evaluation that improved reliability of the scoring. Using the developed rubric to re-score the five burn models, we found that all models created a deep partial thickness injury and that agreement about specific characteristics identified on histologic staining was improved. Finally, we present consensus statements on the evaluation and interpretation of the microanatomy of deep partial thickness burns in pigs. Copyright (c) The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Burn Association.All authors: Andrews CJ, Carney BC, Cuttle L, Gibson ALF, Kowalczewski CJ, Lily S, Liu A, Moffatt LT, Powell HM, Shupp JW, Singer AJ, Stone R, Supp DMOriginally published: Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2020 Aug 24Fiscal year: FY2021Fiscal year of original publication: FY2021Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-09-02
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 32835360 Available 32835360

Deep partial thickness burns are clinically prevalent and difficult to diagnose. In order to develop methods to assess burn depth and therapies to treat deep partial thickness burns, reliable, accurate animal models are needed. The variety of animal models in the literature and the lack of precise details reported for the experimental procedures makes comparison of research between investigators challenging, and ultimately impacts translation to patients. We sought to compare deep partial thickness porcine burn models from five well-established laboratories. In doing so, we uncovered a lack of consistency in approaches to the evaluation of burn injury depth that was present within and among various models. We then used an iterative process to develop a scoring rubric with an educational component to facilitate burn injury depth evaluation that improved reliability of the scoring. Using the developed rubric to re-score the five burn models, we found that all models created a deep partial thickness injury and that agreement about specific characteristics identified on histologic staining was improved. Finally, we present consensus statements on the evaluation and interpretation of the microanatomy of deep partial thickness burns in pigs. Copyright (c) The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Burn Association.

English

Powered by Koha