Experimental Burn Induction in Laboratory Animals: A Scoping Review of Methods, Reproducibility, Operator-Dependent Variability, and Relevance to Soft Tissue Reconstruction and Repair.

backgroundExperimental animal models remain central to burn research and soft-tissue reconstruction/repair, but method heterogeneity compromises reproducibility, comparability, and translation for depth/area endpoints.

objectiveWe aimed to map burn-induction methods and examine reproducibility, intentional depth modulation, wound-area stability, validation, and operator-dependent variability.

methodsA PRISMA-ScR review, informed by JBI guidance, was conducted without registration but with predefined questions, criteria, and charting domains. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 30 January 2026. Eligible studies were English peer-reviewed full-text original in vivo animal studies. Two reviewers independently screened records; one charted data, another checked it. Evidence was mapped by modality, exposure-control architecture, validation, and operator-sensitive steps.

resultsStudies varied by species, modality, device design, exposure settings, and severity verification. Modalities were contact, scald, steam, and radiant/infrared. Wound area was more reproducible than depth, which depended on temperature, duration, force/pressure, geometry, equilibration, anatomical site, and assessment timing. Histopathology was the main standard, sometimes complemented by morphometry, optical, or perfusion techniques. Operator-sensitive variability involved force, alignment, contact stability, template integrity, exposure geometry, source stability/environmental control.

conclusionsBurn induction is a measurement-system problem; constraining operator-sensitive variables, predefined validation timing, and quantitative variability reporting may improve validity, comparability, and translation.