Version Changes
Revised. Amendments from Version 1
This is the first revised version of the article after post-publication reviewers' comments. In this version, we have clarified the objectives of the study. The conclusion section has been edited to make it more aligned with the objectives. Minor grammatical errors have been corrected. Previously, we had used the term "multinomial logistic regression" which was a blunder. We have replaced it with binomial logistic regression because our dependent variables at two different levels of comparison (i.e. types of burns and mortality-yes/no) were dichotomous. Likewise, there were some errors related to using of abbreviations. These have been corrected accordingly.
Abstract
Background: Scald burns result from exposure to high-temperature fluids and are more common in the pediatric age group. They occur mainly by two mechanisms: (i) spill and (ii) immersion (hot cauldron) burns. These two patterns differ in clinical characteristics and outcomes. Scalds cause significant morbidity and mortality in children. The objective of this study was to compare accidental spill burns and hot cauldron burns in a hospital setting.
Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted by reviewing the secondary data of scald cases admitted during the years 2019 and 2020 in a burn-dedicated tertiary care center. Total population sampling was adopted. Data analysis was done partly using SPSS, version-23, and Stata-15. Mann Whitney U-test and Chi-square/Fisher's exact test were done appropriately to find associations between different variables. Binary regression analysis was performed taking mortality events as the outcome of interest.
Results: Out of 108 scald cases, 43 (39.8%) had hot cauldron burns and 65 (60.2%) had accidental spill burns. Overall mortality was 16 (14.8%), out of which hot cauldron burns and accidental spill burns comprised 12 (75.0%) and 4 (25.0%), respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis showed the type of scald, age, and Baux score found to be associated with mortality. Every one-year increment in age had a 29% lower odds of occurrence of mortality event (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.99, p=0.042). Likewise, every one-point increment in Baux score was associated with 19% higher odds of mortality (adjusted OR, 1.190; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; p<0.001).
Conclusions: Accidental spill burn was more common but mortality was significantly higher for hot cauldron burns. The risk of mortality was significantly higher in burn events occurring outside the house, and burns involving back, buttocks, perineum, and lower extremities.
Keywords: accidental, pediatric, burns, immersion
Introduction
Scald burns are the most common types of burn injuries in children throughout the world. 1 , 2 These injuries are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population. 3 , 4 They have long-term physical, psychological and economic impacts on the patients and their families. The majority of scald injuries occur at home and most of them are accidental and preventable. 5 – 7
Scalds result from exposure to hot liquids or steam. They occur mainly by two mechanisms: (i) spill and (ii) immersion burns. 8 – 10 Accidental spill burns are due to spillage of hot liquid such as boiling water, tea, milk, oil, soup, etc. These burns usually happen if a child gets in the way of an adult carrying hot fluids or accidentally play with the utensils filled with hot liquid and spill over their body. Immersion burns take place when children fall or put their hands/feet into a vessel containing hot liquid such as bathtub, tea/coffee pots, hot cauldrons, etc. 3 , 6 , 11 – 14 Past studies have shown that the patterns of these two scalds differ widely for different age groups, gender, and body parts involved, with differences in hospital stay and outcomes secondary to extent of burns. 6 , 15 – 17
The study of different types of scalds can help to control or reduce the predisposing factors and ultimately help in formulating plans and strategies for prevention. This study aimed to compare accidental spill and immersion (hot cauldron) scald burns in different aspects in a tertiary care center. Moreover, the factors affecting mortality were also studied.
Methods
Study setting
The study was conducted in the tertiary care center Kirtipur Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal. It is a national referral center for the management of burn injuries. This hospital has 100 beds in total. Out of these, 32 beds are allocated for burn cases only; of which eight are in Burn Intensive Care Unit (BICU). It takes care of the whole spectrum of burn cases from acute care to the full range of reconstructive services and rehabilitation.
Study description and variables
This was a single-center, analytical, cross-sectional study carried out by reviewing the secondary data of scald burn cases admitted during two years (2019 and 2020). In this study, comparison was done at two different levels. Firstly, the types of burns, namely hot cauldron burns (HCB) and accidental spill burns (ASB) were analyzed in terms of socio-demographic factors, clinical features at presentation, in-hospital treatment measures and associated outcome (i.e. mortality). Next, comparison was done between survivors and non-survivors in terms of socio-demographic factors, presenting features and treatment measures. Out of all scalds, only pediatric cases (age < 18 years) were included in our study. Secondary data was collected from hospital records maintained in electronic form which included all of the acute scald cases admitted to the Plastic Surgery Ward and BICU. Scald cases managed on an outpatient basis were excluded from the study. Total population sampling was used. Those cases with incomplete records were excluded.
The data extracted from the patients' electronic records and stored in our database included demographic information like age, gender, and address of residence. All the immersion injury cases presented to our center had occurred due to falling into cauldrons filled with boiling water containing shredded straw and husk to feed cattle, which is commonly used in Nepal. Spill burns occurred due to spillage of hot liquids (boiling water, tea, coffee, milk, and oil). The mechanism of scalds was categorized into two broad groups: hot cauldron burns (HCB) and accidental spill burns (ASB). Data related to burn injury included type (mechanisms) of scalds, place of burn, pre-hospital intravenous fluid use, presence of infection at presentation, total body surface area, and body parts involved. Likewise, data of in-hospital interventions such as blood transfusion, escharotomy, necrosectomy, tangential excision, second excision, use of graft and/or flap, amputation were also taken. Outcome variables like duration of hospital stay and mortality were also noted.
Since we were collecting data from patients’ electronic records, there was possibility that the hospital staffs might have made errors during data entry in the records. This could give rise to information bias in our study. To reduce it to minimum, we cross-checked every information with patients’ admission files stored in hospital administratin section itself. Next, all the eligible cases were included in the study. So, there was minimal chance of selection bias as well.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was taken from the Institutional Review Committee (IRC no. 006-2021), phect-NEPAL. Before conducting the study, permission was taken from the Department of Burns, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The anonymity of patient information was well-maintained and thus patient consent was waived by the ethical review board.
Statistics
Shapiro-Wilk W test showed that our continuous variables were distributed non-normally, so median and inter-quartile range (IQR) were calculated. Among categorical variables, Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test was applied to check the association between independent and dependent variables. Frequency and percentages were presented appropriately in tables. The level of significance was taken as p < 0.05, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) considering a 5% standard error. The analysis was run partly using IBM SPSS version 23, and Stata version 15.
Logistic regression
The dependent variable was mortality outcome, while the rest of the other variables affecting mortality were independent variables. For regression analysis, the outcome of interest as mortality event was taken and those who died in course of treatment were labeled as 1, and those who survived were labeled as 0. Initially binary logistic regression was run to see the effect of individual variables in mortality outcome. Only those variables which were found to be associated in Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test and significant continuous variables (age, length of hospital stay, and Baux score) were taken for logistic regression analysis. Later, binary logistic regression analysis was performed to check the exact effect of independent variables adjusting to the rest of the variables to check and nullify the confounding effect of different variables evaluated. Unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for binary logistic regression and adjusted OR were presented with 95% CIs. The pseudo R 2 value for binary logistic regression analysis was 0.5367, indicating that our model predicts a similar outcome in about 54% of observations. Multicollinearity across the studied variables was automatically tested by Stata software and no observed variables were omitted across selected variables for binary logistic regression analysis.
Results
A total of 120 pediatric patients with scald burns were admitted during the two-year period. Out of them, 12 were excluded from our study due to their incomplete records. Finally, 108 cases were analyzed. 23 Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. The median age of the patients was 2.8 (IQR = 1.6-4.0) years. In total, 61 (56.5%) of them were male and 47 (43.5%) were female. The majority of the burn injuries occurred in the kitchen (57.4%) and most of the patients were from the Low mountain region (60.2%) of Nepal.
Table 1. Cross-tabulation of different variables with the type of scalds.
| SN | Characteristics | Total n(%) | HCB n(%) | ASB n(%) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | N | 108(100.0) | 43(39.8) | 65(60.2) | |
| 2. | Age (in years) | 2.8(1.6-4.0) | 3(2.0-4.0) | 2.5(1.3-4.0) | 0.362 |
| 3. | Sex (males) | 61(100.0) | 25(41.0) | 36(59.0) | 0.777 |
| 4. | Place of Burns: | 0.152 | |||
| Kitchen | 62(100.0) | 21(33.9) | 41(66.1) | ||
| Inside house | 41(100.0) | 21(51.2) | 20(48.8) | ||
| Outside | 5(100.0) | 1(20.0) | 4(80.0) | ||
| 5. | Baux Score | 17.0(11.6-25.8) | 17.5(14.0-27.0) | 16.0(10.5-23.5) | 0.307 |
| 6. | Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) | 15.0(8.0-20.0) | 15.0(8.0-22.0) | 15.0(8.0-19.0) | 0.463 |
| 7. | Body parts involved: | ||||
| Head and Neck | 22(100.0) | 6 (27.3) | 16 (72.7) | 0.178 | |
| Face | 38(100.0) | 11(28.9) | 27(71.1) | 0.089 | |
| Chest | 40(100.0) | 15(37.5) | 25(62.5) | 0.706 | |
| Abdomen | 36(100.0) | 15(41.7) | 21(58.3) | 0.781 | |
| Back | 31(100.0) | 14(45.2) | 17(54.8) | 0.471 | |
| Buttock | 29 (100.0) | 15(51.7) | 14(48.3) | 0.126 | |
| Perineum | 9(100.0) | 5(55.6) | 4(44.4) | 0.479 | |
| Upper Extremities | 53(100.0) | 20(37.7) | 33(62.3) | 0.665 | |
| Hands | 44(100.0) | 16(36.4) | 28(63.6) | 0.544 | |
| Lower Extremities | 60(100.0) | 24(40.0) | 36(60.0) | 0.965 | |
| 8. | Pre-hospital Intravenous Fluid Use | 22(100.0) | 12(54.5) | 10(45.5) | 0.114 |
| 9. | In-hospital Blood Transfusion | 28(100.0) | 16(57.1) | 12(42.9) | 0.030 |
| 10. | Duration of hospital stay (days) | 9.0(5.0-14.0) | 9.0(5.0-13.0) | 9.0(3.0-14.0) | 0.237 |
| 11. | Infection at admission | 13(100.0) | 7(53.8) | 6(46.2) | 0.270 |
| 12. | Escharotomy | 6(100.0) | 3(50.0) | 3(50.0) | 0.681 |
| 13. | Necrosectomy | 2(100.0) | 1(50.0) | 1(50.0) | 1.000 |
| 14. | Tangential Excision | 52(100.0) | 18(34.6) | 34(65.4) | 0.287 |
| 15. | Second Excision | 8(100.0) | 4(50.0) | 4(50.0) | 0.710 |
| 16. | Graft use | 50(100.0) | 16(32.0) | 34(68.0) | 0.123 |
| 17. | Graft type | 0.109 | |||
| Autograft | 48(100.0) | 15(31.3) | 33(68.8) | ||
| Allograft | 1(100.0) | 0 | 1(100.0) | ||
| Both auto- and allografts | 1(100.0) | 1(100.0) | 0 | ||
| 17. | Amputation | 2(100.0) | 2(100.0) | 0 | 0.156 |
| 18. | Use of flap | 2(100.0) | 2(100.0) | 0 | 0.156 |
| 19. | In-hospital mortality | 16(100.0) | 12(75.0) | 4(25.0) | 0.002 |
Note: Continuous variables are expressed as median (IQR) and categorical variables as number (percentage). The p-value is derived from Mann Whitney U test for continuous variables and Chi-square/Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. SN, Serial Number; HCB, Hot Cauldron Burns; ASB, Accidental Spill Burns; TBSA, Total Body Surface Area.
Overall, 43 (39.8%) had HCB and 65 (60.2%) had ASB. There was no significant difference in age, gender, place of burns, and pre-hospital intravenous fluid use in the two groups of scald patients. Baux score was higher in HCB (17.5, IQR = 14.0-27.0) but the median body surface area of burns was equal (15%) in both the groups. In total, 13 cases (12.0%) had an infection at presentation, which was higher in HCB (53.8%) than in ASB (46.2%). Neither of them were statistically significant.
The most commonly involved body parts were lower extremities (55.6%) followed by upper extremities (49.1%) and hands (40.7%). Of all the lower extremities burns, 36 (60.0%) were from ASB, and 24 (40.0%) were from HCB. None of these were statistically significant.
Tangential excision was performed in 52 (48.1%) patients, of which 34 (65.4%) and 18 (34.6%) belonged to ASB and HCB groups, respectively. Cases requiring the second excision (7.4%) were equally distributed in both groups (50.0%). Only two patients required flap and amputation and they were from the HCB group.
Overall mortality was 16 (14.8%). Out of total deaths, 12 (75%) were from HCB and four (25%) from the ASB group. This was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Requirement of in-hospital blood transfusion was significantly higher (p = 0.030) in HCB (57.1%) than ASB cases (42.9%). The median duration of hospital stay in both groups was nine days (IQR in HCB: 5.0-13.0, ASB: 3.0-14.0).
A significant association was seen between the dependent variable mortality and type of scalds (p = 0.002), place where burn injury took place (p = 0.010), and involvement of body parts like back (p = 0.015), buttock (0.001), perineum (p = 0.026) and lower extremities (0.005) ( Table 2).
Table 2. Cross-tabulation of different variables with mortality outcome using Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test.
| Variables | Total | Mortality n(%) | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | ||||
| Gender | Male | 61(100.0) | 51(83.6) | 10(16.4) | 0.599 |
| Female | 47(100.0) | 41(87.2) | 6(12.8) | ||
| Type of Scalds | HCB | 43(100.0) | 31(72.1) | 12(27.9) | 0.002 |
| ASB | 65(100.0) | 61(93.8) | 4(6.2) | ||
| Place of burn injury | Outside | 5(100.0) | 3(60.0) | 2(40.0) | 0.010 |
| Home | 41(100.0) | 31(75.6) | 10(24.4) | ||
| Kitchen | 62(100.0) | 58(93.5) | 4(6.5) | ||
| Head and Neck | Yes | 22(100.0) | 18(81.8) | 4(18.2) | 0.737 |
| No | 86(100.0) | 74(86.0) | 12(14.0) | ||
| Face | Yes | 38(100.0) | 33(86.8) | 5(13.2) | 0.721 |
| No | 70(100.0) | 59(84.3) | 11(15.7) | ||
| Chest | Yes | 40(100.0) | 34(85.0) | 6(15.0) | 0.967 |
| No | 68(100.0) | 58(85.3) | 10(14.7) | ||
| Back | Yes | 31(100.0) | 22(71.0) | 9(29.0) | 0.015 |
| No | 77(100.0) | 70(90.9) | 7(9.1) | ||
| Abdomen | Yes | 36(100.0) | 28(77.8) | 8(22.2) | 0.125 |
| No | 72(100.0) | 64(88.9) | 8(11.1) | ||
| Buttock | Yes | 29(100.0) | 19(65.5) | 10(34.5) | 0.001 |
| No | 79(100.0) | 73(92.4) | 6(7.6) | ||
| Perineum | Yes | 9(100.0) | 5(55.6) | 4(44.4) | 0.026 |
| No | 99(100.0) | 87(87.9) | 12(12.1) | ||
| Upper Extremities | Yes | 53(100.0) | 46(86.8) | 7(13.2) | 0.644 |
| No | 55(100.0) | 46(83.6) | 9(16.4) | ||
| Hands | Yes | 44(100.0) | 38(86.4) | 6(13.6) | 0.775 |
| No | 64(100.0) | 54(84.4) | 10(15.6) | ||
| Lower Extremities | Yes | 60(100.0) | 46(76.7) | 14(23.3) | 0.005 |
| No | 48(100.0) | 46(95.8) | 2(4.2) | ||
| Pre-hospital intravenous fluid | Yes | 22(100.0) | 19(86.4) | 3(13.6) | 1 |
| No | 86(100.0) | 73(84.9) | 13(15.1) | ||
| In-hospital Blood transfusion | Yes | 28(100.0) | 23(82.1) | 5(17.9) | 0.555 |
| No | 80(100.0) | 69(86.3) | 11(13.8) | ||
| Infection at admission | Yes | 13(100.0) | 11(84.6) | 2(15.4) | 1 |
| No | 95(100.0) | 81(85.3) | 14(14.7) | ||
| Tangential Excision | Yes | 52(100.0) | 46(88.5) | 6(11.5) | 0.356 |
| No | 56(100.0) | 46(82.1) | 10(17.9) | ||
| Escharotomy | Yes | 6(100.0) | 5(83.3) | 1(16.7) | 1 |
| No | 102(100.0) | 87(85.3) | 15(14.7) | ||
| Graft (yes or no) | Yes | 50(100.0) | 44(88.0) | 6(12.0) | 0.445 |
| No | 58(100.0) | 48(82.8) | 10(17.2) | ||
| Graft Type | Autograft | 48(100.0) | 43(89.6) | 5(10.4) | 0.145 |
| Allograft | 1(100.0) | 1(100.0) | 0(0.0) | ||
| Auto and Allo | 1(100.0) | 0(0.0) | 1(100.0) | ||
| Flap | Yes | 2(100.0) | 2(100.0) | 0(0.0) | 1 |
| No | 106(100.0) | 90(84.9) | 16(15.1) | ||
| Second excision | Yes | 8(100.0) | 7(87.5) | 1(12.5) | 1 |
| No | 100(100.0) | 85(85.0) | 15(15.0) | ||
| Amputation | Yes | 2(100.0) | 2(100.0) | 0(0.0) | 1 |
| No | 106(100.0) | 90(84.9) | 16(15.1) | ||
| Necrosectomy | Yes | 2(100.0) | 1(50.0) | 1(50.0) | 0.276 |
| No | 106(100.0) | 91(85.8) | 15(14.2) | ||
Note: All these categorical variables are expressed as number (percentage). The p-value is derived from Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test. HCB, Hot Cauldron Burns; ASB, Accidental Spill Burns.
Logistic regression
Binary logistic regression analysis was run to check association across variables showing significant association by Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test and continuous variables namely, patient’s age, length of hospital stay, and Baux score ( Table 3). Binary logistic regression showed higher mortality in HCB in comparison to ASB type of scald. Similarly, burns occurring outside the house had a higher association with mortality. Involvement of the back, buttock, perineum, and lower extremities was found to be associated with higher odds of mortality. However, adjusting independent variables and continuous variables (age, Baux score, length of stay) showed the only type of scald, age, and Baux score found to be associated with mortality. Every one-year increment in age has a 29.0% lower odds of occurrence of mortality event (adjusted OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99, p = 0.042). Likewise, every one-point increment in Baux score was associated with 19% higher odds of mortality (adjusted OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; p < 0.001).
Table 3. Cross-tabulation of different variables with mortality outcome using multinomial logistic regression.
| Mortality | uOR | [95% Conf. Interval] | z | P>|z| | aOR | [95% Conf. Interval] | z | P>|z| | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type (ASB®) | ||||||||||
| HCB | 5.903226 | 1.757944 | 19.8232 | 2.87 | 0.004* | 40.93118 | 3.598128 | 465.6204 | 2.99 | 0.003* |
| Place of burn (Kitchen®) | ||||||||||
| Outside | 9.666666 | 1.23679 | 75.55403 | 2.16 | 0.031* | 17.62378 | .2270896 | 1367.732 | 1.29 | 0.196 |
| Home | 4.677419 | 1.355177 | 16.1442 | 2.44 | 0.015* | 1.985822 | .2886093 | 13.66376 | 0.70 | 0.486 |
| Back (No®) | ||||||||||
| Yes | 4.090909 | 1.364786 | 12.26239 | 2.52 | 0.012* | .2862989 | .030569 | 2.681378 | −1.10 | 0.273 |
| Buttock (No®) | ||||||||||
| Yes | 6.403509 | 2.066449 | 19.84318 | 3.22 | 0.001* | 1.834235 | .2428109 | 13.85612 | 0.59 | 0.557 |
| Perineum (No®) | ||||||||||
| Yes | 5.8 | 1.365009 | 24.64453 | 2.38 | 0.017* | .4362471 | .0299323 | 6.358065 | −0.61 | 0.544 |
| LE (No®) | ||||||||||
| Yes | 6.999993 | 1.505288 | 32.55184 | 2.48 | 0.013* | 14.85796 | .9267597 | 238.2052 | 1.91 | 0.057 |
| Age | .9742711 | .8173489 | 1.161321 | −0.29 | 0.771 | .7059931 | .5048816 | .9872142 | −2.04 | 0.042* |
| Length of hospital stay | 1.010032 | .9505634 | 1.073222 | 0.32 | 0.747 | .9490669 | .8554489 | 1.05293 | −0.99 | 0.324 |
| Baux | 1.099279 | 1.048855 | 1.152127 | 3.95 | 0.000* | 1.194787 | 1.081358 | 1.320114 | 3.50 | 0.000* |
| Constant | .0001546 | 1.58e-06 | .0151046 | −3.75 | 0.000 | |||||
Note: *, significant; ®, reference; uOR, unadjusted Odds ratio; aOR, adjusted Odds ratio; HCB, Hot Cauldron Burns; ASB, Accidental Spill Burns; LE, Lower Extremities.
Discussion
In our study, HCB and ASB accounted for 39.8% and 60.2% of total cases respectively. Although there are numeric differences across the two groups in terms of demographic and clinical profile, statistical significance exists in mortality and in-hospital blood transfusion only. Overall mortality was 16 (14.8%), out of which 12 (75%) were from HCB and 4 (25%) from the ASB group. Blood transfusion was required more in HCB cases (57.1%) than in ASB cases (42.9%). Mortality was higher in male gender (16.4%), burns outside the house (40.0%), body parts involving head and neck (18.2%), chest (15.0%), back (29.0%), abdomen (22.2%), buttocks (34.5%), perineum (44.4%), lower extremities (23.3%) and those who underwent escharotomy (16.7%) and necrosectomy (50.0%). Out of these, burns outside house (p = 0.010), involvement of buttocks (p = 0.001), back (p = 0.015), perineum (p = 0.026) and lower extremities (p = 0.005) were statistically significant.
A study in India 18 reported the mortality in pediatric scald burns to be 3.1% which is lower compared to our number (14.8%). The plausible explanation for these differences is the difference in the site of study, sample size, and duration of the study. Another reason could be because our center is a national referral center for burns, so it is likely that more complicated and extensive cases are being referred here. Another study in Kashmir, India 19 showed mortality from scalds to be 10.7% which is comparable to our findings. The most common place of burn event in our study was a kitchen (57.4%) which is comparable to a study (64.7%) done by Riedlinger DI et al. Similarly, grafting was done in 41.2% of patients which also corresponds to our study (46.3%). 5 Another study 6 depicted the incidence of accidental immersion and spill burns as 5.4% and 81.4%, respectively, which differs from our findings where immersion (hot cauldron) and spill burns comprise 39.8% and 60.2%, respectively. Similarly, a Turkish study 3 showed that the most frequent cause of burn was scalding from spillage of hot water (59.7%) followed by bath scalding (i.e. immersion injury) accounting for 26% of cases. This is in line with the percentage of spill burns in our case. Likewise, in Japan, immersion burn (59.3%) was reported to be higher than spill burns (40.7%). 16 This could be due to the provision of the bathtub in developed countries like Japan where there is a high chance of children climbing up and falling into bathtubs.
The most commonly involved body parts were lower limbs (55.6%) and upper limbs (49.1%) in our study. This finding contradicts a study by Drago DA et al, 6 where the upper torso (25.3%) and upper limbs (24.1%) were maximally involved. A Japanese study 16 revealed that the most common sites of immersion injury were trunk and legs (80%) followed by arms, and those of spill burns were trunk (91.7%) followed by head/neck and arms. In our case, the most common body parts involved were lower followed by upper extremities. The same study showed the average body surface area of scald as 11.3% which is slightly lower than ours (15.0%). Immersion-related burns were more likely to be located on the lower half of the body involving buttocks, thighs, legs, and feet in a French study. 17 Another also found out that most scalds occurred on the upper limbs. 20 These discrepancies could be due to different sample sizes and sites of study. The mean total body surface area reported in a study from Arizona 21 was 8.0% which is much lower than ours (15.0%). The difference could be due to our center being a referral center where complicated burn cases are being referred from all over the country. However, the mean length of hospital stay in this study 21 (8 days) is similar to our study (9 days).
In a study from Ontario, 15 Children with spill burns had a shorter average length of hospital stay (10.8 days) compared to those involved in bathtub immersion burns (18.3 days). In our study, the median duration of hospital stay was equal in both the groups of scalds (nine days) though it was not statistically significant. Likewise, in the same study, the mean age in both scald groups was 1.8 years whereas, in our setting, the median age in HCB and ASB were 3.0 and 2.5 years, respectively. A study from Beijing 22 showed that the scald burns most commonly occurred in the kitchen which supports our result.
There are some limitations of this study that need to be mentioned. The number of cases was lower than expected because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Lack of complete data also excluded a significant portion of cases from the study. The data also fails to analyze the economic status of children which could make them susceptible not only to a certain type of scald burn but also limits the access to first aid and primary care, hence affecting the outcome. Moreover, this is a single-center study over a short period of time so, the results may not be applicable to the whole country. For that purpose, multi-center studies conducted over a longer duration are recommended.
Conclusions
ASB was more common in our setting. The mortality was higher in HCB group. These were more likely to require an in-hospital blood transfusion compared to patients with ASB. There were no other significant differences between these two groups. The risk of mortality was significantly higher in burn events occurring outside, and those involving the back, buttocks, perineum, and lower extremities. So, special focus should be given to these factors during management.
Data availability
Figshare: Comparison of Accidental Pediatric Scald Burns in a Tertiary Care Center: Hot Cauldron Burns versus Accidental Spill Burns.sav. http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16583501. 23
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
References
- 1. Khan T, Wani A, Darzi M, et al. : Epidemiology of burn patients in a tertiary care hospital in Kashmir: A prospective study. Indian J Burn. 2014 [cited 2021 Jun 27];22(1):98. 10.4103/0971-653X.147017 Reference Source [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Allasio D, Fischer H: Immersion scald burns and the ability of young children to climb into a bathtub. Pediatrics. 2005 May [cited 2021 Jun 19];115(5):1419–21. 10.1542/peds.2004-1550 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Sakallioǧlu AE, Başaran Ö, Tarim A, et al. : Burns in Turkish children and adolescents: Nine years of experience. Burns. 2007 Feb [cited 2021 Jun 18];33(1):46–51. 10.1016/j.burns.2006.05.003 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Chalya PL, Mabula JB, Dass RM, et al. : Pattern of childhood burn injuries and their management outcome at Bugando Medical Centre in Northwestern Tanzania. BMC Res Notes. 2011 [cited 2021 Jun 19];4. 10.1186/1756-0500-4-485 Reference Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Riedlinger DI, Jennings PA, Edgar DW, et al. : Scald burns in children aged 14 and younger in Australia and New Zealand - An analysis based on the Burn Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ). Burns. 2015 May 1 [cited 2021 Jun 18];41(3):462–8. 10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.027 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Drago DA: Kitchen scalds and thermal burns in children five years and younger. Pediatrics. 2005 Jan [cited 2021 Jun 18];115(1):10–6. 10.1542/peds.2004-0249 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Shrestha SR: Burn injuries in pediatric population. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2006 Jul 1 [cited 2021 Jun 27];45(163):300–5. Reference Source [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Thermal Burns: Overview, Pathophysiology, Quantifying Burn Severity. [cited 2021 Jun 18]. Reference Source
- 9. Hettiaratchy S, Dziewulski P: Pathophysiology and types of burns. BMJ. 2004 Jun 12 [cited 2021 Jun 18];328(7453):1427–1429. 10.1136/bmj.328.7453.1427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Scald - an overview|ScienceDirect Topics:[cited 2021 Jun 19]. Reference Source
- 11. Mukerji G, Chamania S, Patidar GP, et al. : Epidemiology of paediatric burns in Indore, India. Burns. 2001 [cited 2021 Jun 18];27(1):33–8. 10.1016/S0305-4179(00)00058-9 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Shields WC, McDonald EM, Pfisterer K, et al. : Scald burns in children under 3 years: An analysis of NEISS narratives to inform a scald burn prevention program. Inj Prev. 2015 Oct 1 [cited 2021 Jun 18];21(5):296–300. 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041559 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Chapman JC, Sarhadi NS, Watson ACH: Declining incidence of paediatric burns in Scotland: a review of 1114 children with burns treated as inpatients and outpatients in a regional centre. Burns. 1994 [cited 2021 Jun 18]; Vol.20: p.106–10. 10.1016/S0305-4179(06)80004-5 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Cauldron - Wikipedia:[cited 2021 Jun 18]. Reference Source
- 15. Ray JG: Burns in young children: a study of the mechanism of burns in children aged 5 years and under in the Hamilton, Ontario burn Unit. Burns. 1995 [cited 2021 Jun 18];21(6):463–6. 10.1016/0305-4179(95)00020-C Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Fukunishi K, Takahashi H, Kitagishi H, et al. : Epidemiology of childhood burns in the Critical Care Medical Center of Kinki University Hospital in Osaka, Japan. Burns. 2000 Aug 1 [cited 2021 Jun 18];26(5):465–9. 10.1016/S0305-4179(99)00189-8 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Mercier C, Blond MH: Epidemiological survey of childhood burn injuries in France. Burns. 1996 [cited 2021 Jun 18];22(1):29–34. 10.1016/0305-4179(95)00073-9 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Kumar P, Chirayil PT, Chittoria R: Ten years epidemiological study of paediatric burns in Manipal, India. Burns. 2000 May 1 [cited 2021 Jun 18];26(3):261–4. 10.1016/S0305-4179(99)00109-6 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Khan T, Wani A, Darzi M, et al. : Epidemiology of burn patients in a tertiary care hospital in Kashmir: A prospective study. Indian J Burn. 2014 [cited 2021 Jun 19];22(1):98. 10.4103/0971-653X.147017 Reference Source [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Zhu L, Zhang H, Shi F, et al. : Epidemiology and outcome analysis of scalds in children caused by “guo lian kang”: An 11-year review in a burn center in China. Burns. 2015 Mar 1 [cited 2021 Jun 19];41(2):289–96. 10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.013 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Rimmer RB, Weigand S, Foster KN, et al. : Scald burns in young children- A review of arizona burn center pediatric patients and a proposal for prevention in the hispanic community. J Burn Care Res. 2008 Jul [cited 2021 Jun 19];29(4):595–605. 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31817db8a4 Reference Source [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Wang S, Li D, Shen C, et al. : Epidemiology of burns in pediatric patients of Beijing City. BMC Pediatr. 2016 Oct 18 [cited 2021 Jun 19];16(1):166. 10.1186/s12887-016-0686-7 Reference Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Pathak BD, Nakarmi KK, Shrestha D, et al. : Comparison of Accidental Pediatric Scald Burns in a Tertiary Care Center: Hot Cauldron Burns versus Accidental Spill Burns.sav. figshare. Dataset. 2021. 10.6084/m9.figshare.16583501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]