Lack of Agreement Between Gross Visual and Histological Assessment of Burn Reepithelialization in a Porcine Burn Model

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

One of the most important and earliest measures of burn healing is wound reepithelialization. Reepithelialization is a vital determinant of wound infection and scarring. Reepithelialization is generally based on gross visual assessment; however, histological assessment remains the criterion standard. We hypothesized that there would be poor agreement (r < .4) between gross visual and histological assessments of burn reepithelialization in a porcine model. The study design was prospective observational using three anesthetized female pigs (20–25 kg). Forty-eight 2.5- × 2.5-cm burns were created on the flanks of pig's using an aluminum bar (150 g) preheated to 80°C for 20 seconds. Burns were treated with an occlusive or antimicrobial dressing and photographed at day 10 for determination of gross percentage reepithelialization in a 1-cm diameter circle in the center of the burn by two experienced clinicians masked to each other's measurements. A 10-mm full-thickness punch biopsy was taken from the center of the burns and evaluated by a board-certified dermatopathologist masked to clinical assessments. One clinician and the dermatopathologist repeated the assessments 1 month apart. The outcome was percentage wound reepithelialization at 10 days. The criterion standard was the histological assessment. Intraobserver and interobserver agreements were calculated with Pearson's correlation coefficients. A coefficient less than .4 was considered poor. Sixteen burns were created on each of three animals. Six wounds were excluded because of the presence of a thick eschar covering the burn, making the gross determination of reepithelialization impossible. Intraobserver agreement for histological reepithelialization was 0.96 (P < .001). Intraobserver agreement for gross visual assessment of reepithelialization was 0.75 (P < .001). Interobserver agreement for gross visual assessment of reepithelialization was 0.60 (P < .001). The agreement between gross visual and histological assessment of burn reepithelialization was −0.25. Although there was a good interobserver agreement for gross visual assessments, there was a poor agreement between gross visual and histological assessments of burn reepithelialization. Care should be used when determining burn reepithelialization based on gross visual assessments alone.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles