The Evaluation and Recording of Burn Size: Technical and Medical Considerations

N.S. Makino^*
*Correspondence: N.S. Makino, Department of Surgery, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Mwanza 1464, Tanzania, Email:

Keywords

Burn size • Burn assessment • Lund and browder chart

Introduction

Burn injuries are a significant public health concern worldwide, resulting in substantial morbidity and mortality. Effective management of burn patients requires accurate assessment of burn size, which influences decisions regarding fluid resuscitation, surgical intervention and wound care. Historically, burn size estimation relied on subjective methods such as the Lund and Browder chart, which approximate the percentage of body surface area affected by burns. While widely used, these traditional methods have inherent limitations, including variability in anatomical landmarks and subjective interpretation. In recent years, technological advancements have revolutionized the field of burn assessment, offering new tools and techniques for measuring burn size with greater accuracy and precision [1]. Digital imaging technologies allow for objective documentation and analysis of burn wounds, while three-dimensional scanning techniques provide detailed information on burn depth and topography. Despite these innovations, challenges remain in integrating these techniques into clinical practice and ensuring their reliability in diverse patient populations. This paper aims to review the current state of burn size evaluation, exploring both traditional and emerging methods and discussing the technical and medical considerations that influence their use. By examining the advantages, limitations and practical applications of various assessment methods, we seek to provide insights into optimizing burn size assessment and improving patient outcomes in burn management [2].

Literature Review

The evaluation of burn size has evolved significantly over the years, driven by advances in technology and clinical practice. Traditional methods such as the Lund and Browder chart have long been used for estimating burn size based on the percentage of body surface area affected. While these methods provide a standardized approach to burn assessment, they are subject to variability due to differences in anatomical landmarks and individual interpretation [3]. In recent decades, digital imaging technologies have emerged as promising alternatives to traditional methods of burn assessment. High-resolution photography and computerized analysis allow for precise measurement and documentation of burn wounds, enabling objective assessment and longitudinal monitoring. Furthermore, three-dimensional scanning techniques offer additional advantages by capturing detailed information on burn depth and topography, facilitating treatment planning and outcome prediction. Despite these advancements, challenges persist in accurately evaluating burn size, particularly in complex cases. Factors such as edema, eschar formation and anatomical variability can complicate measurements, leading to errors in assessment. Moreover, the training and experience of healthcare providers influence the reliability of burn size estimation, highlighting the importance of standardized protocols and ongoing education [4].

Discussion

The selection of an appropriate method for burn size evaluation depends on various factors, including the clinical setting, resource availability and patient characteristics. While traditional methods like the Lund and Browder chart remain practical in many contexts, their reliance on subjective assessment limits their accuracy, particularly in complex cases or in patients with atypical body shapes. Digital imaging offers advantages in terms of objectivity and reproducibility, allowing for precise measurement and documentation of burn wounds [5]. However, its widespread adoption may be hindered by factors such as cost, equipment availability and technical expertise. Furthermore, the interpretation of digital images requires training and experience, highlighting the importance of standardized protocols and ongoing education for healthcare providers. Three-dimensional scanning represents the cutting edge of burn size assessment, offering detailed information on burn depth and topography. However, its integration into clinical practice may be limited by factors such as cost, technical complexity and the availability of specialized equipment. Additionally, the interpretation of three-dimensional data requires expertise, necessitating collaboration between burn specialists and imaging professionals [6].

Conclusion

Accurate evaluation and recording of burn size are essential for guiding clinical decision-making and optimizing patient outcomes in burn management. While traditional methods such as the Lund and Browder chart provide a standardized approach to burn assessment, newer technologies such as digital imaging and three-dimensional scanning offer enhanced accuracy and precision. The selection of an appropriate assessment method should take into account factors such as the clinical setting, resource availability and patient characteristics. Challenges remain in accurately evaluating burn size, particularly in complex cases or in patients with atypical body shapes. Factors such as edema, eschar formation and anatomical variability can complicate measurements, leading to errors in assessment. Furthermore, the training and experience of healthcare providers influence the reliability of burn size estimation, highlighting the importance of standardized protocols and ongoing education. By leveraging the latest advancements in technology and embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, clinicians can improve the quality of care for burn patients and enhance their long-term prognosis. Continued research and innovation are needed to further refine burn size assessment techniques and improve patient outcomes in burn management.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Lobo, Dileep N., Zeno Stanga, Mark M. Aloysius and Catherine Wicks, et al. "Effect of volume loading with 1 liter intravenous infusions of 0.9% saline, 4% succinylated gelatine (Gelofusine) and 6% hydroxyethyl starch (Voluven) on blood volume and endocrine responses: A randomized, three-way crossover study in healthy volunteers." Crit Care Med 38 (2010): 464-470.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Chung, Kevin K., Steven E. Wolf, Leopoldo C. Cancio and Ricardo Alvarado, et al. "Resuscitation of severely burned military casualties: Fluid begets more fluid." J Trauma Acute Care Surg 67 (2009): 231-237.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at 

3. Friedrich, Jeffrey B., Stephen R. Sullivan, Loren H. Engrav and Kurt A. Round, et al. "Is supra-Baxter resuscitation in burn patients a new phenomenon?." Burns 30 (2004): 464-466.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Hammond, Jeffrey S. and C. Gillon Ward. "Transfers from emergency room to burn center: Errors in burn size estimate." J Trauma Acute Care Surg 27 (1987): 1161-1165.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Goverman, Jeremy, Edward A. Bittner, Jonathan S. Friedstat and Molly Moore, et al. "Discrepancy in initial pediatric burn estimates and its impact on fluid resuscitation." J Burn Care Res 36 (2015): 574-579.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Neaman, Keith C., L. Albert Andres, Amanda M. McClure and Michael E. Burton et al. "A new method for estimation of involved BSAs for obese and normal-weight patients with burn injury." J Burn Care Res 32 (2011): 421-428.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at