Talk:Total body surface area

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mistake?

The percentages for the child add up to 101%... is that a mistake? IronC hris | (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by this as well, though it's not 101%; the "total" for the adult is 73%, for the child 78%. The missing % presumably cover areas of skin that aren't addressed here, for example the side of the torso, the soles of the feet, and skin inside folds, armpits or between digits that is less likely to get burnt. That's just a guess though... --Firien ^{need help?} 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the amounts for the leg and arm should be doubled, as they are quoted per limb; the total (for the adult) thus comes to 100% (refer my comment below on the relevance of % for the child). Awinkler (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genitalia/Perineum

In the reference I cited, Genitalia was not explicitly included. While the "correct" method is to remove that line, I suggest keeping the 1% for table symmetry (and treat that same 1% as also included in the torso. --Sigma 7 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, infants do not receive 1% for perineum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.239.199 (talk • contribs)

The table references children, not infants. Also, a burn to that region should not be considered negligable to not be listed. --Sigma 7 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table for children

What's the source for the % distribution table for children? All the sources I can find, e.g. Ref 1, Ref 2, Ref 3, Ref 4 describe the distribution as being variable with age (as would be expected). It looks like a generalisation of the Lund-Browder chart and should be changed. Awinkler (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of nines...

...redirects here, but is never explained. I think I can vager a guess based on the repeated numbers 4.5, 9, and 18, but an explicit explanation would be nice. 88.77.135.6 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC) The idea, I think, is that each limb or body part is 9% or multiples of 9% except the perineum which is 1%. It is a quick and rough guestimation method and should only be used for the rapid initial assessment of a burn; for example to decide on where to transfer a patient or if fluid resuscitation is required. The combination of Lund & Browder charts and the "hand print=1% " method should then be used once the patient is in hospital.Doctorwithwound (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Mistake TBSA adults: Head and neck

TBSA adults: Head and neck 2% should not be this 20 or 25%, or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.225.92 (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]