Major Burn Injury Successfully Treated with Cultured Epithelial Autografts, a Case Series Presentation: Establishing Standard Clinical Practices

Cultured epithelial autografts have been an option for coverage of large surface area burns for over two decades. However, there remains extreme variability in clinical practice in wound bed preparation, application of cultured epithelial autografts, and post-operative wound care and rehabilitation practices, demonstrating the need for a standardized and multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of critically injured patients treated with cultured epithelial autografts. The purpose of this case series was to share the development of a clinical practice guideline and competency checklist in our institution where cultured epithelial autograft case volume is low. In this case series, we examined the medical records of three patients treated with cultured epithelial autografts at a single burn center over a period from 2015-2018. Operating room times and fluid resuscitation volumes were examined on days when cultured epithelial autograft grafting was performed. In order to facilitate meticulous post-operative wound care in a facility where only 1-2 cultured epithelial autograft applications are performed per year, a clinical practice guideline and competency checklist were generated and trialed on a series of nurses and rehabilitation therapists for the three applications of cultured epithelial autografts. Amongst the patients treated with cultured epithelial autografts, the average TBSA burned was 71.6%. Less intra-operative crystalloid administration and faster operative case times were associated with improved cultured epithelial autograft success. The inclusion of the clinical practice guideline and checklist into our practice led to reported improved confidence in patient care, along with the successful outcomes of these cultured epithelial autograft applications.

663 Application and Management of Cultured Epithelial Autografts (CEAs) on Posterior Burns – A 5-year, Multi-center, Retrospective Review of Outcomes

Introduction In patients with larger burns, treatment with CEAs have proven to increase survival.1 CEAs, while useful, are not without some disadvantages. For instance, if the injury involves burns to posterior surfaces, the challenge is inherent in that these fragile sheets are easily sheared, and pressure can cause disruption and graft loss. CEA grafting must be managed with specific care and with specialized protocols that help address these challenges. Graft loss due to these and other factors can delay healing, increase hospital length of stay, and increase the cost of care. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the success for graft take in patients with posterior burns treated with CEA and to discuss the techniques, protocols and approaches to managing these patients within our burn network. Methods This retrospective study was granted exemption by IntegReview IRB. Take rate for each application of CEA was not always found for some cases. For purposes of this study, we agreed with methods of other researchers in the literature and adapted the “clinically relevant” assessment that take and final coverage was successful when re-grafting was not required by the time of discharge or death.2 Results Study dates was March 2016 - December 2019 and at this time, is being reported from among 3 of 6 participating centers. Our approach is to provide CEA prep the day before initial placement and then to ensure strict protocols are followed at the bedside post-op and thereafter. Total number of patients considered was 68, 41 were deemed evaluable. See tables for other demographics and results. 31 patients were discharged to rehab (75%), 6 were discharged home (15%) and 4 died (10%). Conclusions Meticulous attention to wound bed preparation and ensuring that post-op care is clearly stated and understood by all clinicians involved in the care of patients with larger burns with posterior trunk involvement is the key to successful coverage with CEA to this challenging anatomical location.

653 Resourceful Surgical Planning for Coverage of Large Burns: Optimizing Cultured Epithelial Autografts (CEAs) Outcomes by Combining with a Modified MEEK Procedure

Introduction We previously reported a modified MEEK technique providing reliable skin transfer using a specific adhesive called, “The Rule of Sevens”.¹ This innovative approach is now part of our practice and we have experienced good outcomes as a result. With that technique perfected, we have also begun incorporating this method as part of the surgical plan for coverage of large TBSA burns with CEAs. This study is a report of our initial experiences utilizing a combination of our modified MEEK procedure and CEA grafting for larger TBSA burns. Methods This retrospective study was granted exemption by IntegReview IRB. Demographic data was reviewed. In some cases, incomplete documentation related to percentage take was noted. To account for this limitation, we agreed with other investigators in the literature and applied the “clinically relevant” assessment to this study analysis. This approach assumed that take and final coverage were successful when re-grafting was not required by the time of discharge or death.² Results Nineteen (19) patients total were treated with MEEK/CEA from April 2016 – February 2020. One patient was an outlier, acquiring infection, requiring additional surgery to close the wound, and did not meet criteria to evaluate. There were 4 females (25%) and 14 males (74%), age range 9–71, Mean 37, Median 34, Mode N/A. TBSA was 30–92%, Mean 62 Median 60, Mode 55. Length of stay was 20–188 days, Mean 89, Mode 136. This is approximately 1.5 days’ stay, per percent of burn in this group of patients with larger burns. MEEK meshing ratio was documented on 16 patients, range from 6:1 - 9:1 ratio. Five patients had a 6:1 ratio, 11 patients had 9:1 meshing ratio used. There were 6 deaths in the total group of 18 evaluable patients (33%). Of these, all had MEEK performed initially, however; 3 did not live long enough to have CEA placed. One patient died before initial takedown of CEA could be performed. The other two died during treatment, both had documentation supporting 70% and 90% take, respectively. To determine overall take, we determined whether any of the surviving patients treated needed further grafting. None of the 12 remaining patients required further grafting. This met our criteria of successful take and gave us a 100% success rate. There were 9 patients with documentation clearly stating a percent take rate. In this group, the documented percent take range was 60–97%, Mean 84%, Median 85% and Mode 96%,80%. Again, none of these patients required additional surgery. Conclusions A modified MEEK technique in providing coverage of larger burns with CEA has offered our center better options of expansion thus perfecting the technique of transfer. Most importantly, the MEEK/CEA has resulted in excellent outcomes with a documented mean take rate of 84%.

Plastic Surgery Innovation Through War, Disaster and Pandemic

Introduction and Objectives: Mass casualties from modern warfare in World War I and advancements in medicine resulted in survivors with deformities. The field of Plastic Surgery developed from a need to reconstruct soft tissue injuries in these soldiers. Wars and disasters provide unique situations which push the development of new techniques that impact the field. The objective of this work was to identify innovations in plastic surgery that emerged from disasters. Project Methods: The PubMed and Ovid databases were searched for articles documenting origination of plastic surgery ideas during a disaster with the terms “disaster”, “war”, “plastic”, “burn”, “terror”, and/or “novel”. Types of disasters considered include: war, terrorism, accident and natural disaster. Articles were included if they discussed novel therapies published emerging from a disaster. Results: Twenty-one articles meeting inclusion criteria. Eleven papers described innovations during war including use of k-wires in hand fractures, gender affirmation surgery, delayed wound closure, cleft lip repair, vascular repair of acute trauma, sulfamylon antibiotics, and portable vacuum-assisted-closure (VAC) devices. Two articles resulted in surgical staff collaboration modeling and rapid recruitment from terrorist attacks. Five manuscripts defined accidents that brought about ideas of cultured epithelial autografts, VAC for burns, and targeted muscle reinnervation to decrease chronic pain in amputees. Natural disasters that caused change were depicted in three articles discussing adequate burn treatments for resource poor areas and using telemedicine for outpatient care and academic meetings. Conclusions and Potential Impact: The field of Plastic Surgery continues to advance from innovations developed during disasters. Our study found war resulted in the greatest novel advancements. Terrorism and natural disasters have emerged as sparking innovation during the last few decades. Physicians should be encouraged to look for opportunities of innovation using their ingenuity when faced with disaster. What progress will COVID-19 bring?

The Effect of Enzymatic Digestion on Cultured Epithelial Autografts

Severe burns are often treated by means of autologous skin grafts, preferably following early excision of the burnt tissue. In the case of, for example, a large surface trauma, autologous skin cells can be expanded in vitro prior to transplantation to facilitate the treatment when insufficient uninjured skin is a limitation. In this study we have analyzed the impact of the enzyme (trypsin or accutase) used for cell dissociation and the incubation time on cell viability and expansion potential, as well as expression of cell surface markers indicative of stemness. Skin was collected from five individuals undergoing abdominal reduction surgery and the epidermal compartment was digested in either trypsin or accutase. Trypsin generally generated more cells than accutase and with higher viability; however, after 7 days of subsequent culture, accutase-digested samples tended to have a higher cell count than trypsin, although the differences were not significant. No significant difference was found between the enzymes in median fluorescence intensity of the analyzed stem cell markers; however, accutase digestion generated significantly higher levels of CD117- and CD49f-positive cells, but only in the 5 h digestion group. In conclusion, digestion time appeared to affect the isolated cells more than the choice of enzyme.