Comprehensive Management of Deep Second- And Third-Degree Gasoline Burns in a High-Specialty Burn Unit
Main Article Content
Abstract
Burns are traumatic injuries that affect the skin and underlying tissues, potentially causing significant systemic, functional, and aesthetic complications, especially when critical areas such as the face and neck are involved. Among causative agents, flammable liquids like gasoline are associated with rapidly progressing and deep burns. We present the case of a 57-year-old male patient who suffered direct exposure to gasoline, developing superficial second-degree, deep second-degree, and third-degree burns, affecting approximately 6–7% of total body surface area. He was admitted to a high-specialty burn unit, where he received comprehensive management including hemodynamic stabilization through guided fluid resuscitation, multimodal analgesia, hypercaloric and hyperproteic nutritional support, scheduled surgical debridements, and application of Suprathel® as a temporary dermal substitute. During his clinical course, severe facial edema and risk of functional and aesthetic complications were documented; however, the multidisciplinary approach allowed airway preservation, pain control, wound bed protection, and promotion of re-epithelialization. Follow-up included early rehabilitation to maintain cervical mobility and oral opening, as well as evaluation by plastic surgery and ophthalmology to prevent sequelae. This case demonstrates that structured, protocolized comprehensive management with advanced dermal coverage technologies, such as Suprathel®, is an effective strategy to optimize clinical, functional, and aesthetic recovery in patients with deep burns caused by flammable liquids in critical areas, highlighting the importance of specialized units and a multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of complex injuries.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
I. Schwarze, H., Küntscher, M., Uhlig, C., Hierlemann, H., Prantl, L., Noack, N., & Hartmann, B. (2008). Suprathel, a new skin substitute, in the management of partial-thickness burn injuries: Results of a prospective, randomized, bicentric, nonblinded, clinical study. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 60(2), 131–136.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31815e4a04 PubMed
II. Heitzmann, W., Mossing, M., Fuchs, P. C., Akkan, J., Seyhan, H., Grieb, G., Opländer, C., & Schiefer, J. L. (2023). Comparative clinical study of Suprathel® and Jelonet® wound dressings in burn wound healing after enzymatic debridement. Biomedicines, 11(10), 2593.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11102593 MDPI
III. Hundeshagen, G., et al. (2018). A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing the outpatient treatment of pediatric and adult partial-thickness burns with Suprathel or Mepilex Ag. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 39(2), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0000000000000574 PMC
IV. Rashaan, Z. M., et al. (2016). Usability and effectiveness of Suprathel® in partial-thickness burn wounds: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Burns, 42(4), 803–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2015.12.015 PMC
V. Fischer, S., et al. (2016). Case report: Suprathel® for severe burns in the elderly. Burns, 42(4), 803–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2015.12.015 ScienceDirect
VI. Heitzmann, W., et al. (2023). Comparative clinical study of Suprathel® and Jelonet® wound dressings in burn wound healing after enzymatic debridement. Biomedicines, 11(10), 2593.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11102593 MDPI
VII. Schiefer, J. L., et al. (2022). Comparison of wound healing and patient comfort in partial- thickness burn wounds treated with Suprathel® and Epicitehydro®. International Wound Journal, 19(2), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13674 Wiley Online Library
VIII. Karlsson, M., et al. (2023). Suprathel® or Mepilex® Ag for treatment of partial-thickness scalds in children: A randomized controlled trial. Burns, 49(2), 345–352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2022.11.009 ScienceDirect
IX. Hill, D. M., et al. (2023). Risk-benefit review of currently used dermal substitutes for burn wound management: A systematic review. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 44(Supplement_1), S26–S35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irad022Oxford Academic
X. Sellars-Pompey, R. T., et al. (2023). A comparison of Suprathel® burn dressing vs. standard care in the treatment of partial-thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 44(4), e104–e110.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irad022 digital.sandiego.edu
XI. Barbachowska, A., et al. (2023). Alloplastic epidermal skin substitute in the treatment of deep dermal burns: A retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(1), 43.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010043 MDPI
XII. Wahler, S., et al. (2017). Cost-effectiveness comparison between Biobrane® and Suprathel® in burn wound management. Value in Health, 20(6), 827–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.011 valueinhealthjournal.com
XIII. Sellars-Pompey, R. T., et al. (2023). A comparison of Suprathel® burn dressing vs. standard care in the treatment of partial-thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 44(4), e104–e110.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irad022 digital.sandiego.edu
XIV. Shahbandeh, M., et al. (2022). Evaluation of the antibacterial and wound healing properties of a burn ointment containing curcumin, honey, and potassium aluminium. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2211.11939. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.11939 arXiv
XV. Collins, D., et al. (2023). Epiprotect vs Suprathel vs Biobrane for SPT/DD burns: A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing epidermal skin substitutes for the treatment of partial- thickness burns in children. NHS Health Research Authority. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application- summaries/research-summaries/epiprotect-vs-suprathel-vs-biobrane-for-sptdd-burns/ Health Research Authority