ArticleCureus2025
Utility of Excision and Direct Closure in Burns: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the past years, the mainstay of burn treatment has been early tangential excision and skin grafting. Excision with direct closure is another reconstructive approach that has not been extensively explored. This study aims to review the existing literature on the utility of excision and direct closure, including prospective series, case series, correspondence, and randomized controlled trials. We also present our case report of a 12-year-old patient who sustained self-inflicted burns totaling 35% total body surface area (TBSA) and underwent bilateral mammaplasty, consistent with the excision and direct closure technique. The study finds that direct closure of burn wounds requires sufficient tissue laxity to allow tension-free closure. This technique has multiple advantages, including reduced burn surface area, decreased rates of hypermetabolism and infections, quicker healing time, shorter hospital stays, lower healthcare costs, and better esthetic outcomes. In our patient's case, her bilateral breast burns were initially treated with tangential excision and allograft, which were complicated by poor graft adhesion and pseudomonal colonization. Subsequently, the plastic surgery team excised burned breast tissues using the principles of reduction mammaplasty with superomedial-central pedicle to mobilize the remaining healthy breast parenchyma and skin to create an esthetic breast mound. No additional breast surgery was needed during the patient's remaining hospital stay. In summary, while having similar rates of postoperative complications to traditional burn treatment, excision and direct closure offer several advantages. However, primary closure may not be suitable for patients with an extensive burn surface area without an adequate tissue reservoir. Therefore, this technique should be further investigated as the treatment option for a selective burn population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.