ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2023
Local Anaesthesia for Enzymatic Debridement of Cutaneous Burns: A Prospective Analysis of 27 Cases.
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enzymatic debridement (ED) is increasingly used for cutaneous burns. Compared with surgical debridement, ED has better preservation of viable dermis, less blood loss and autografting, however ED is painful. Current recommendations suggest local anaesthesia (LA) is useful for minor burns, but the evidence base is minimal. In our centre, we routinely use LA with good analgesic effect. This study was a single-centre, prospective analysis conducted at the Queen Victoria Hospital (UK). Patients had at least superficial partial thickness burns and received subcutaneous LA prior to ED during a 1-year period (October 2019-September 2020). Pain was assessed using a numeric scale of 1-10, recorded before, during and after the procedure. In total, 27 patients were included (n=17 males) with a median age of 47 (18-88 years). The mean total burn surface area was 1.5% (0.3-5.0). Treated sites included head and neck (1), trunk (5), upper limb (9) and lower limb (16). The most used LAwas bupivacaine 0.25% (n=25), followed by lidocaine 1% (n=2). Some required additional oral analgesia (n=8) or a regional blockade (n=2). Average pain score during debridement was 1.9 We have found LA effective, with favourable pain scores in comparison to previous studies with oral analgesia or regional blockade. LA is quick and easy to perform, as opposed to nerve blocks, which require trained personnel with ultrasound guidance. LA is a useful analgesic for patients with minor cutaneous burns undergoing ED. In some cases, it is sufficient without additional oral analgesia or regional blockade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38680904PMC11044729What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.