The Treatment Effect of Operative Intervention for Flame versus Scald Burns in Resource-Limited Settings

Sarah Peiffer,Linda Kayange,Selena An,Olivia Boddie,Anthony Charles,Jared Gallaher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2024.08.014

IF: 2.609

2024-08-20

Burns

Abstract:Introduction In resource-limited environments, it is critical to triage burn patients most likely to benefit from operative intervention. This study sought to identify patients with a more significant treatment effect after operative intervention following burn injury at a tertiary burn center in Lilongwe, Malawi. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of burn patients presenting to Kamuzu Central Hospital from 2011 through November 2022. We compared patients based on whether they had scald or flame burns. Using logistic regression, we estimated the adjusted treatment effect of operative intervention on in-hospital mortality. Operative intervention was defined as burn excision and debridement with or without skin grafting. Results We included 3,266 patients. 2,099 (64.7%) patients had a scald burn, and 1,144 (35.3%) had a flame burn. 630 patients (19.3%) underwent surgery. Crude mortality among all patients was 18.1%, and for patients who underwent surgery, it was 9.7%. When adjusted for %TBSA (total burn surface area) and age, the average treatment effect of surgery on mortality was -0.07 (95% CI -0.11, -0.033) for patients with scald burns and -0.17 (95% CI -0.22, -0.11) for patients with flame burns. (Figure 1). For patients with flame burns, the adjusted odds ratio of death associated with surgery was 0.26 (95% CI 0.17, 0.39). Conclusions Operative intervention confers a survival advantage for patients with flame burns, and the average treatment effect was more significant compared to patients with scald burns. In resource-limited environments, flame burns should be prioritized for surgery over scald burns to improve patient outcomes.

dermatology,surgery,critical care medicine