Talk:Burn

Many of the sections below have been relocated to reflect similarity in subject matter to the respective sections that were started earlier and now immediately precede them. Some material has been separated the material immediately following it, but not in response to it, by later addition of a heading; in many cases, the resulting new section has been moved to follow material older than its own, that relates more closely to its subject matter.
--Jerzy•t 04:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-combustive burns

what about hot things that are not in combustion? one commonsly would call the injury from, say, a hot pan a burn. Is this medically incorrect? What is the difference between a burn and a scald? -- Tarquin 22:05 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Your points have been incorporated. -Menchi 22:13 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All burns from a source of heat whether it be a fire or steam are considered thermal burns. 65.96.38.93 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Friction burns

Shouldn't there be some information on burns due to friction, since those are slightly different from normal heat burns? Retodon8 20:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Friction can cause burn?

Shouldn't friction be included in the list of causes? --Xinjinbei 07:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've added friction burn in two places. Carcharoth 08:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Smoke burn

And talking of other types of burns, smoke burn is a bit of an oddity. It seems to be a rare sort of burn associated with backdraft fires, or something similar. It shouldn't be confused with smoke inhalation, but I'm not quite sure enough about all this to add it to the article. Carcharoth 08:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First aid

I think there should be a section on the proper treatment of second degree burns (8 Dec 2005) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:48, 9 December 2005 (talk) 128.187.0.165

Treatment

This page could use more information about treating burns. Like how long should a person leave there hand on ice... how quickly should one get to ice etc...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:08, 5 July 2006 71.145.192.233 (talk)

The first bullet says that you shouldn't douse cold burns, and yet the cold burn section says that you should. I have no idea which is correct, but seemingly this should be corrected by someone who does. Also, it should probably be noted that medical assistance is generally not needed for any first degree burn unless further injury could occur. If burned myself on the oven and went to the ER with a red finger, they'd just be annoyed. --Ieatlint 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it does seem contradictory. However, there's a slight difference between dousing in water and using flowing water, which could need some clarification. --Sigma 7 06:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see more information about natural treatment of burns. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

This article seems to be written from a first aid/medical perspective. I was thinking it might be a good idea to talk about it also from a biological perspective, eg. what actually distinguishes a burn (is it cell death?), and there's also little mention of radiation burns. cyclosarin (previously raptor) 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced First Aid section

The First Aid section does not cite any sources for the information that it provides. If someone could provide valid sources, it would be a beneficial edit to make to the article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First Aid Treatment

I have rewritten the first aid section, I am a qualified first aider(St John Singapore) and i written it with refrence to a first aid manual. I have added more info, corrected the tone, and revised some of the treatment. So can we now remove the tag saying its unencyclopedic for that section? And I only have a basic first aid certificate, and only referenced to a single manual, so if there are others who have better knowledge than me, please feel free to edit it. Fierywindz 13:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is more that Wikipedia shouldn't contain things of that nature. It should, however, fit well in Wikibooks (Sister project) on the subject of 1st aid. You can then link to it via something like {{wikibookspar}}. 68.39.174.238 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Burn Remedies.

Common culinary mustard when applied to minor burns avoids pain and scarring at the burn site.[1]

Is there a suggestion here? This isn't a reliable source, certainly not a medically reliable source. WLU (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsafe first aid practice

The article states, douse a chemical burn with cool water for first aid, this isnt accurate in all chemical burns. For instance of the chemical is acidic the water will just dilute and spread the acid around, increasing burn size. - J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.237.7 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 July 2007

I'll look into that, as I don't remember that being the correct solution I got from my reference. --Sigma 7 02:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I've also added a comment concerning chemicals which are special cases. --Sigma 7 07:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article suggests Lidocaine as a topical anesthetic. According to Patient Self Care by Canadian Pharmacists Association's section on First Aid management of burns, benzocain and tetracane shouldn't be used and lidocain and dibucaine should be used sparingly due to risk of sensitizing the skin and/or developing allergic contact dermatitis with prolonged use. Pramoxine (Xylocaine) is a suitable alternative. Also topical aloe vera gel have not shown consistent results in aiding burn healing in humans. Because of the possibility of impairing wound healing, it shouldn't be used on open wounds. (from the same source). Dumbadum (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Treatment and history of treatment (burn:injury)

The following mislocated contrib is moved from Talk:Burn (disambiguation) --Jerzy•t 04:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC):

Why no real treatment section, or even a link to a "you just hurt yourself in the kitchen, what should you do" type site? It should also include the history of burn treatment, including previously used but now proven incorrect treatments (eg, butter).
--Gront (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a link to the Mayo clinic. Will (eventually) look for a history of burn treatment page. Gront (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also found http://www.ameriburn.org/index.php which has a very extensive education section on burn prevention. Gront (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Burn temperatures?

How hot does water or metal have to be in order for it to cause tissue damage? Is there some kind of approximate mathematical relationship than can describe it? For instance, if you touch a 400(F) oven rack for a split second, you'll probably get away with a minor burn, but if you somehow got your hand caught in it you'd probably get very severely burned. Likewise, how hot can bath/hot-tub water be before a person's skin begins to be scalded? Jeeves 12:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of temperature, but of heat. Rama 12:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Severity measures

Moved from following the earlier 6 Jun 2003 discussion in secn #Non-combustive burns

wow! that was quick! There's some sort of calculation involving body weight & percentage of skin affected by burns that is done by doctors. We should probably put this in too. -- Tarquin 22:20 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think what you're thinking of is estimation of the area of burn injury (usually done from a diagram, or (roughly) estimated by the rule of 9's: 9% for face, 9% each arm, front of each leg 9%, back of each leg 9%, back 9%, front of torso 18%, back of torso 18%). If we could find a copyright-free diagram it'd be a good addition. The calculations with weight have to do with fluid replacement and probably are too specialized for here. -- Someone else 22:35 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Degrees

Perhaps adding some images to properly show the difference of a first, second and third degree burns.

Furthermore those images currently in the article, they dont appear to me to be of a second degree burn, rather first degree; im not a doctor, but i distinctly remember from my school books that a second degree burn is worse than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:31, 14 July 2005 (talk) 158.38.88.137

Please keep the classification section and table. The classification of burns as 1st - 3rd degree is not used in Europe and is ambiguous - is 1st worse than 3rd or is 3rd worse than 1st ?. Classifications which give more informnation (such as partial or full thickness are more specific and less ambiguous. Proper burn classification is very useful as it immediately tells you the likely treatment and prognosisBmphilp (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1st or 2nd degree?

The pictured burn doesn't look to me as if it were of second degree (compare with a 2nd degree burn example here), but closer o first degree. Benzh 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The following contrib, in apparent response to the 8 February 2006 contrib, was placed above the "1st or 2nd degree?" heading that precedes them both, and not properly relocated here until now, so the succeeding discussion may have ignored it. --Jerzy•t 04:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree...the pictures are not a second degree burn. Those are first. I just found that out from first hand experiance a couple of days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:18, 27 February 2006 (talk) 68.50.47.1

Second-degree is when you get blistering, which did occure in this case. These two photos are more here to show the evolution leading to the blister (especially that in the beginning, it does not look that bad :p) than to illustrate the blisters themselves; of course here is much more impressive, though I suspect that there are elements of 3rd degree burns there too. Rama 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Third degree burns considered painless? What a joke. I've had third degree burns from boiling oil and I can tell you that it's not painless, however that is a common myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.163.14 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

4,5,6th degree

Here, in Canada (at least ontario) there is no class 4 5 or 6 degree burns. There is nothing officaly past 3rd degree. could someone please cite where these classes are from/used? rz350 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of "class 4 5 or 6" either (and it's not like I am totally uninterested in the topic)... Rama 08:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on my current anatomy class learings, and my class pressentation of the integumentary system, (the skin among other things,) I can tell you that burns are decided based on to what layer of skin it reaches: in order of superficial in internal, epidermis, dermis and subcutanious. Because there are only three layers, you can only get up to a second degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:54, 18 March 2006 (talk • contribs) Hakusa

I've never seen those terms either. However, Google Scholar does find a few uses of the term fourth-degree burn. A reference would be good, though. -- Anon, 22 March 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:45, 23 March 2006 (talk) 85.164.14.146

Someone I know has suffered 4th degree burns, though I have never heard of 5th or 6th degree. Degrees 1, 2, and 3 apply to the skin burns. Once muscle, bone, and other tissues get involved it is beyond 3rd degree. Electrical burns can easily affect deeper tissues in this manner. --Vertigo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:43 & :48, 8 December 2006 (talk) 67.52.19.150

As a 3rd degree burn survivor, I can honestly say that the 4th degree designation is used when the burns reach the layers adjacent to the bone. When there is no healthy skin left after the escharotomy and the bone is exposed, it is termed a 4th degree burn. 5th and 6th degree diagnoses are rarely used as a subtype of 4th degree burns to distinguish the damage done. I will try to find documented and verifiable sources. Jimzim66 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Google's summary of a medical journal (which is not accessible online), "In the fifth degree there is destruction of the muscles, and in the sixth degree burn there is charring to the bone or total gangrene." Not sure about 4th, though --Firehawk1717 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be 'original research' or at least not generally-accepted as fact:

Burns that injure the tissues underlying the skin, such as the muscles or bones, are sometimes categorized as fourth-degree burns. These burns are broken down into three additional degrees: fourth-degree burns result in the skin being irretrievably lost, fifth-degree burns result in muscle being irretrievably lost, and sixth-degree burns result in bone being charred.

Also, these classifications seem ridiculous because no one could survive a 'fifth-degree' so why need a sixth?131.96.70.164 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:6th Degree -- It may be relevant in post-mortem autopsy examinations, as a matter of defining depth of injury. (NM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.199.238 (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Doctor, i apologize for questioning your prognosis, but in the short time since the fall of Babylon, we have developed marvelous life saving techniques, such as ligation of severed arteries and medical amputation of irremediably damaged extremities. I respectfully suggest you permit me to assist you with this patient, rather than proceeding with your chuckeminthemiddenization.
--Jerzy•t 04:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned in the article that the 1st/2nd/3rd system is most common (eg, here) but that sometimes a 4th is added (as here). Classifications that include fifth and sixth degrees are in pretty limited use, but since some people make that extra distinction it seems reasonable to continue to mention it in the article. —One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 04:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some cites as to references to burns beyond 3rd in established medical literature. I also have never heard of those beyond 3rd, 3rd is the worst you can get as it chars and or/destroys the bone. I have an anatomy book that doesn't list any beyond 3rd. I heard of 4th degree burns in an episode of X-files once, but of course that's not a reliable source, leading me to believe it's not a real burn classification. As for those of you who have said you have heard of 3rd and 4th degree burns or suffered them yourself, who told you they were beyond 3rd? Was it your doctor or some reliable source? Also, what about burns that burn to the bone, leaving nothing there? I suppose the only course of action would be to amputate the limb, as it will never grow back and you can't do a skin graft, etc The snare (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Be Bold been removed from Wikipedia culture? Unsupported by any citation at all, 5th and 6th degree burn inclusion sure looked like stealth vandalism to me. I removed, and I recommend that they not be restored without verification and confirmed citations. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While I can't provide proof, I once heard an emergency department doctor talk about 4th degree burns, but for lay person, and even EMS use, burns max out at 3rd degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.38.93 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that fifth and sixth degree burns were used in the TV series ""The X Files"" and someone may believe that they are real. This does not appear to be the case, folks. I can still find no references to 5/6th degree that does not either refer back to this article or to X Files. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rule of 9s

This hasnt been in use in britain (apparently) for a while because it was deemed inaccurate - see St. Johns handbook or similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stui (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 July 2006

In the United States the rule of 9s is standard in EMS. The textbooks I have from wilderness first responder, wilderness EMT, and Paramedic school all teach the rule of 9s. 65.96.38.93 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessing burns

I'm pretty sure that the perineum is not a factor in the Rule Of Nines. --Hungoverdrawn 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Burn Chart

The burn chart says that there is no sensation with a full thickness burn, but this is both true and false. While the full thickness burn its self has no sensation, a full thickness burn is, with very few exceptions, surrounded by both superficial and partial thickness burns, which are very painful. Even though a full thickness burn technically has no sensation, I think it is important to note that full thickness burns are very painful. I also want to ad d that when I was in EMT class, and later paramedic school, we were discoureged from using 1st-3rd, but rather to use superficial, partial, and full thickness. I'm not going to change anything because people should give their opinions. 65.96.38.93 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tetanus

I have recently learned that deep burns require that the patient receive a tetanus shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.49.235 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 13 July 2007

Citation? --Sigma 7 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actual pictures

This article has a good diagram of all types of burns, but an actual picture of each type of degree burn would be useful. Klosterdev 21:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-link loop

The 'Parkland Formula' link in the 'Management' section is now self-referential to 'Burns', so could be unlinkified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.254.17 (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor point of linkage

In the first section is a reference to "being defibrillated or cardioverted". There is an article titled Cardioversion, but it's relatively short. Should "cardioverted" become a link to that? 124.168.116.114 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Leading?

I removed this:

Statistically, it is the second highest unintentional cost of human life behind automobile accidents.

Not only does the cited source specifically put burns in third place, but I don't buy that for a second. First, is that only in America? First-world countires? The world? Heart disease and infections are the leading causes of death in the world by far, and they're unintentional.. in fact, burns don't even make the list at all, and the only "intentional" causes of death on the entire list are suicide, violence, and war. Come on, who put this ridiculous statistic in the article, it's obviously complete BS, use some common sense people :D\=< (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Science of a burn? / What is a burn?

What about what physically happens at the cellular level to the dermis and such as excessive heat is applied to it? Klosterdev (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Need reliable sources describing it, unless a doctor contributor wants to wing it. I'd guess that it'd first heat the skin, char the epidermis, then begin boiling water in the dermis, once the water has evapourated the remaining tissue would start to char. But what about electrical burns? And steam burns? If we could get even a basic source discussing, I think that would be, if I may be histrionic for a second, awesome. This doesn't look very reliable, but has a fairly low-level discussion that's pretty easy to understand (and a really gruesome picture...) This could probably be used as a source for a draft, but eventually should be replaced. Was this what you were thinking of, or less sequelae, more chemistry at the actual burn site? WLU (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of what you're saying, I think it's particularly odd that this article never attempts to define a burn beyond saying that it is an injury. We get 100 things that cause burns, but we don't even know what a burn is. What differentiates a burn from any other kind of injury? Is it really nothing more than "an injury caused by X, Y or Z"? I always thought a burn was defined as a kind of cytolysis -- destruction of a cell usually caused by the water turning to steam, but sometimes due to the water turning to ice (or something else?). Maybe I just made that up. Brettland (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Perineum Burn

I can't remember where I read/heard this, but I remember reading that if the perineum is burnt (I think that would equate to the 1% body burn) then no matter how severely the rest of the body is burnt, a person is most likely to die. I was just wondering if that's been verified before or if it's even true? londonsista | ^Prod 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Perineal injuries increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. This is due to the increased rsik of sepsis due to faecal soiling of wounds. Patients with massive burns usually have a bowel manageemnt system inserted (a rectal catheter). Defunctioning colostomy or ilesostomy is fraught with complications in major burn patients, especially if done early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.91.126 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Friction Burn?

Doesn't that qualify for another type of burn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.150.76.120 (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

sixth degree burn

would it be possible to survive a sixth degree burn on an extremity such as a hand or foot? 131.247.152.4 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Added "needs citation" tag because I am sure it is possible for an extremity to be completely burned off and someone still survive. 76.179.147.161 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

treatment

Added some info on treatment.

Looks like this page needs more references though.

--Doc James (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

화상은 여과 차가움에 의해 야기될수있는 인저리의 타입이다..를 영어로 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thdclgh (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)