Search

Deep dermal and full-thickness burns often result in scar sequelae such as contractures, hypertrophy, pain and itching following split-thickness skin grafting. Dermal substitutes are currently employed alongside split-thickness skin grafting to enhance clinical outcomes, though their indications remain a subject of ongoing debate. This systematic review aims to clarify the indications for the application of dermal substitutes in burn patients, in both acute and reconstructive settings. A comprehensive search across various databases was conducted. Studies (n = 190) assessing the indications and outcomes of dermal substitutes in acute burn patients and those requiring reconstructive surgery were included. Data extraction included the applied dermal substitute, age, total body surface area, wound depth, burn aetiology, anatomical site and exclusion criteria. The indications were derived from predetermined indications, i.e. inclusion and exclusion criteria and patient characteristics. The depth of the wound emerged as the primary indication for dermal substitute use. A one-stage approach is recommended for deep dermal to full-thickness wounds larger than 10 cm 2 , while a two-stage approach is advised for wounds of this depth with limited donor sites or exposed bone or tendon. No definitive age or burn/scar location thresholds were identified, and careful consideration is advised for electrical and chemical burns. Contraindications include wound infections and allergies to matrix components. Limited data exist on use in patients with diabetes mellitus, chronic vascular disease, or immunocompromised status. This is the first review to address the indications for dermal substitutes in burn patients, providing valuable insights for the development of international evidence-based treatment guidelines., (© 2024 The Author(s). Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wound Healing Society.)

Background: Fractures of the hand and wrist are one of the most common injuries seen in adults. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire has been developed as a patient-reported assessment of pain and disability to evaluate the outcome after hand and wrist injuries. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) can be interpreted as pain, function or patient satisfaction. To be able to interpret clinical relevance of a PRO, the structural validity and internal consistency is tested. The Dutch version of the DASH has not yet been validated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the structural validity and the internal consistency of the existing Dutch version of the DASH. The relevance of reporting subscale scores was investigated., Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data of 370 patients with an isolated hand or wrist injury. Adult patients aged 18 to 65 years treated conservatively or surgically were included. Patients unable to understand or read the Dutch language were excluded. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to investigate the structural validity, while Cronbach's alpha and coefficient omega were used to assess internal consistency., Results: All investigated models (a single factor model, a 3-correlated factor, and a bifactor model) were associated with a good model fit. Both the single factor and the 3-correlated factor model were associated with factor loadings of at least 0.70. In addition, the covariance between the factors in the 3-correlated factor model was positive (at least 0.89) and statistically significant (p < 0.001). In the bifactor model, the additional value of subscales was limited as the items loaded high on the general factor but low on the subscale factors., Conclusion: This study indicates that the Dutch version of the DASH should be considered as an unidimensional trait. A single score should be reported.

Background: Hand and wrist injuries are one of the most common injuries seen in adults. The Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaire has been developed as a patient-report outcome measure of pain and disability to evaluate the outcome after hand and wrist injuries., Objective: The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the structural validity of the existing Dutch version of the PRWE (PRWE-NL) in patients with hand or wrist injuries and (2) to investigate the appropriateness of reporting subscale scores., Design: This was a retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data of 368 adult patients., Methods: Patients aged 18 to 65 years and treated either surgically or conservatively for an isolated hand or wrist injury were recruited. Patients were excluded if they were unable to speak or read Dutch. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to investigate structural validity, and Cronbach alpha (α) and omega (ω) coefficients were used to investigate internal consistency., Results: A series of confirmatory factor analyses revealed that all models (ie, a single-factor model, correlated 2- and 3-factor models, and 2 bifactor models) were associated with adequate model fit. However, inspection of the factor loadings, the explained common variance (ECV), and the different coefficient omega values revealed that the PRWE-NL should be considered a measure of a unidimensional trait. In addition, PRWE-NL subscales were associated with unacceptably low levels of reliability independently of the global PRWE-NL factor., Limitations: Although the sample size was adequate, the response rate was 37.1%. Participants were mainly patients with fractures of the wrist or hand, predominantly treated nonsurgically., Conclusion: This study suggests that the PRWE-NL measures a unidimensional trait. A single score should be used for the PRWE-NL, without subscale scores., (© 2016 American Physical Therapy Association.)