Comparison of two-dimensional methods versus three-dimensional scanning systems in the assessment of total body surface area estimation in burn patients.

BACKGROUND Accurate measurement of percent total body surface area (%TBSA) burn is crucial in the management of burn patients for calculating the estimated fluid resuscitation, determining the need to transfer to a specialized burn unit and probability of mortality. %TBSA can be estimated using many methods, all of which are relatively inaccurate. Three-dimensional (3D) systems have been developed to improve %TBSA calculation and consequently optimize clinical decision-making. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of percent total burn surface area calculation by conventional methods against novel 3D methods. METHODS This prospective cohort study included all acute burn patients admitted in 2016 who consented to participate. The staff burn surgeon determined the %TBSA using conventional methods. In parallel, a researcher determined 3D %TBSA using the BurnCase 3D program (RISC Software GmbH, Hagenberg, Austria). Demographic data and injury characteristics were also collected. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used to determine differences between each measure of %TBSA, with assessment of the influence of body mass index (BMI) and gender on accuracy. RESULTS Thirty-five patients were included in the study (6 female and 29 male). Average age was 47.5 years, with a median BMI of 26.6kg/m2. %TBSA determined by BurnCase 3D program was statistically significantly different from conventional %TBSA assessment (p=0.007), with the %TBSA measured using Burn Case 3D being lower than the %TBSA determined using conventional means (Lund and Browder Diagram) by 1.3% (inter-quartile range -0.6% to 5.6%). BMI and gender did not have an impact on the estimation of the %TBSA. CONCLUSION The BurnCase 3D program underestimated %TBSA by 1.3%, as compared to conventional methods. Although statistically significant, this difference is not clinically significant as it has minimal impact on fluid resuscitation and on the decision to transfer a patient to a burn unit. 3D %TBSA evaluation systems are valid tools to estimate %TBSA, and should therefore be considered to improve %TBSA estimation at centers with no available experienced burn staff surgeon. Their use may ultimately prevent inappropriate transfers and allow for improved management of patients with acute burns.

[1]  E. Livingston,et al.  Percentage of burned body surface area determination in obese and nonobese patients. , 2000, The Journal of surgical research.

[2]  D. Orgill,et al.  A review of computer-aided body surface area determination: SAGE II and EPRI's 3D Burn Vision. , 2002, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[3]  C. Berry,et al.  The inter-rater reliability of estimating the size of burns from various burn area chart drawings. , 2000, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[4]  J. Dirnberger,et al.  The determination of total burn surface area: How much difference? , 2013, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[5]  N Collis,et al.  Accuracy of burn size estimation and subsequent fluid resuscitation prior to arrival at the Yorkshire Regional Burns Unit. A three year retrospective study. , 1999, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[6]  Marek Krawczuk,et al.  Body surface area formulae: an alarming ambiguity , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[7]  J. Rhodes,et al.  The surface area of the hand and the palm for estimating percentage of total body surface area: results of a meta‐analysis , 2013, The British journal of dermatology.

[8]  C. Serrano,et al.  A system for 3D representation of burns and calculation of burnt skin area. , 2011, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[9]  Michael Giretzlehner,et al.  BurnCase 3D software validation study: Burn size measurement accuracy and inter-rater reliability. , 2016, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[10]  S. Hettiaratchy,et al.  Initial management of a major burn: II—assessment and resuscitation , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  G. Evans,et al.  A Review of Emergency Department Fluid Resuscitation of Burn Patients Transferred to a Regional, Verified Burn Center , 2003, Annals of plastic surgery.

[12]  Yan Wan,et al.  BurnCalc assessment study of computer-aided individual three-dimensional burn area calculation , 2014, Journal of Translational Medicine.

[13]  S F Miller,et al.  Burn size estimate reliability: a study. , 1991, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[14]  P. Maitz,et al.  Accuracy of burn size estimation in patients transferred to adult Burn Units in Sydney, Australia: an audit of 698 patients. , 2015, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[15]  J. Dirnberger,et al.  Smartphones and burn size estimation: "Rapid Burn Assessor". , 2014, Annals of burns and fire disasters.

[16]  M. Giretzlehner,et al.  The potential impact of wrong TBSA estimations on fluid resuscitation in patients suffering from burns: things to keep in mind. , 2014, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[17]  N. Pallua,et al.  Treatment of burns in the first 24 hours: simple and practical guide by answering 10 questions in a step-by-step form , 2012, World Journal of Emergency Surgery.