Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Multi-Specialty Care for Second-Degree Pressure Cooker Explosion Burn Injuries

Schukow C., Nordyke BR.

Laboratory Study on Burns, Scar, published in Spartan Med Res J (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Spartan Med Res J (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
33655192
PMCID
PMC7746041
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Context Although pressure cookers are very common kitchen utensils used in the United States, only a few cases of serious injuries secondary to pressure cooker explosions have been reported in the medical literature. When second-degree (i.e., "partial-thickness") burns result from pressure cooker explosions, wounds involving near to or greater than 10% of total body surface area typically require multidisciplinary treatment, with burn center referral for proper wound care, potential fluid resuscitation, and eventual scar management. Example case The example patient described in this report was an African American female in her early 30s who presented during the summer of 2020 after suffering varying levels of second-degree burns to her bilateral upper torso and left wrist (i.e., approximately 10%, total body surface area). The authors first saw the patient during a primary care office visit a week after her initial injury when she first went to a local urgent care clinic. Upon her arrival to the second author's family medicine clinic, a multi-specialty wound recovery plan was initiated since her first urgent care visit treatment had been minimal without prophylactic antibiotic therapy or placement of a burn center referral. Conclusions Partial and full-thickness burn injuries generally warrant immediate clinical (i.e., body surface area burn assessment, fluid resuscitation, emp

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research