4.6 Article

Current Methods of Burn Reconstruction

Journal

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 131, Issue 5, Pages 827E-836E

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828e2138

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Integra LifeSciences, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Learning Objectives: After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Explain the present challenges in reconstructive burn surgery. 2. Describe the most appropriate treatment methods and techniques for specific burn injury types, including skin grafts, dermal substitutes, and a variety of flap options. 3. Identify the appropriate use, advantages, and disadvantages of specific flaps in the treatment of burn injuries, including local, regional, superthin, prefabricated, prelaminated, and free flaps. Summary: Victims of thermal burns often form heavy scars and develop contractures around joints, inhibiting movement. As burns can occur in all cutaneous areas of the body, a wide range of reconstructive options have been utilized. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that must be considered by both patients and surgeons. The authors reviewed the literature for burn reconstruction and focused their discussion on areas that have been recently developed. They reviewed the mechanism of burn injury and discussed how this relates to the pathophysiology of the burn injury. Surgeons now have a wide array of plastic surgical techniques that can be used to treat burn victims. These range from skin grafts and local flaps to free flaps, prefabricated flaps, superthin flaps, and dermal scaffolds. Recent advances in burn reconstruction provide methods to decrease scar tissue and joint contractures. In the future, the authors hope that further developments in burn treatment will foster the development of new technologies that will allow site-specific reconstruction with minimal donor-site morbidity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available