Shih Jessica G, Shahrokhi Shahriar, Jeschke Marc G
From the *Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery and †Ross Tilley Burn Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ‡Department of Immunology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and §Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Burn Care Res. 2017 Jan/Feb;38(1):e293-e298. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000373.
The aims of this article are to review low-voltage vs high-voltage electrical burn complications in adults and to identify novel areas that are not recognized to improve outcomes. An extensive literature search on electrical burn injuries was performed using OVID MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases from 1946 to 2015. Studies relating to outcomes of electrical injury in the adult population (≥18 years of age) were included in the study. Forty-one single-institution publications with a total of 5485 electrical injury patients were identified and included in the present study. Fourty-four percent of these patients were low-voltage injuries (LVIs), 38.3% high-voltage injuries (HVIs), and 43.7% with voltage not otherwise specified. Forty-four percentage of studies did not characterize outcomes according to LHIs vs HVIs. Reported outcomes include surgical, medical, posttraumatic, and others (long-term/psychological/rehabilitative), all of which report greater incidence rates in HVI than in LVI. Only two studies report on psychological outcomes such as posttraumatic stress disorder. Mortality rates from electrical injuries are 2.6% in LVI, 5.2% in HVI, and 3.7% in not otherwise specified. Coroner's reports revealed a ratio of 2.4:1 for deaths caused by LVI compared with HVI. HVIs lead to greater morbidity and mortality than LVIs. However, the results of the coroner's reports suggest that immediate mortality from LVI may be underestimated. Furthermore, on the basis of this analysis, we conclude that the majority of studies report electrical injury outcomes; however, the majority of them do not analyze complications by low vs high voltage and often lack long-term psychological and rehabilitation outcomes after electrical injury indicating that a variety of central aspects are not being evaluated or assessed.
本文旨在回顾成人低电压与高电压电烧伤并发症,并确定尚未被认识到的可改善预后的新领域。我们使用OVID MEDLINE、PubMed和EMBASE数据库,对1946年至2015年期间的电烧伤损伤进行了广泛的文献检索。纳入研究的是与成年人群(≥18岁)电损伤预后相关的研究。共识别出41篇单机构发表的文献,涉及5485例电损伤患者,并纳入本研究。这些患者中,44%为低电压损伤(LVI),38.3%为高电压损伤(HVI),43.7%的电压情况未另行说明。44%的研究未根据低电压损伤与高电压损伤来描述预后。报告的预后包括手术、医疗、创伤后及其他(长期/心理/康复)方面,所有这些方面报告的HVI发生率均高于LVI。仅有两项研究报告了创伤后应激障碍等心理预后。电损伤的死亡率在LVI中为2.6%,在HVI中为5.2%,在未另行说明的情况中为3.7%。验尸官报告显示,LVI导致的死亡与HVI导致的死亡之比为2.4:1。HVI比LVI导致更高的发病率和死亡率。然而,验尸官报告的结果表明,LVI导致的即时死亡率可能被低估。此外,基于本分析,我们得出结论,大多数研究报告了电损伤预后;然而,其中大多数并未按低电压与高电压分析并发症,且往往缺乏电损伤后的长期心理和康复预后,这表明许多核心方面未得到评估或评价。