This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (5)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

J. RAYMOND HINSHAW, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1961;83(4):549-553.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

No one questions the importance of distinguishing between second- and third-degree burns, and everyone knows the task is difficult and sometimes impossible. Few, however, recognize more than 1 or 2 factors which contribute to mistakes in diagnosis. In the course of experiments performed for other reasons and dealing with histologic studies of several thousand new and healing burns, and in clinical and histologic studies of 26 burned patients, several reasons for our difficulties have become clear.

This paper describes certain conditions which cause us to misjudge burn severity and discusses factors other than surface appearance which should influence our judgment. Only thermal burns are considered.

Methods

The experimental burns were produced on anesthetized young Chester White pigs because their skin resembles human skin more closely than that of any other animal. Radiant energy burns were produced with a modified Army carbon arc searchlight,¹ a device which permits the repeated . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
ROCHESTER, N.Y.

From the Department of Surgery, and the Flash Burn Section of the Atomic Energy Project, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry.

Footnotes
Presented before the 18th Annual Meeting of the Central Surgical Association, St. Louis, February 17, 1961.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?