Gandhi G, Parashar A, Sharma RK. Epidemiology of electrical burns and its impact on quality of life - the developing world scenario. World J Crit Care Med 2022; 11(1): 58-69 [PMID: 35433307 DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v11.i1.58]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Atul Parashar, MBBS, MCh, MS, Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh 160012, India. atulparashar@hotmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Surgery
Article-Type of This Article
Prospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Crit Care Med. Jan 9, 2022; 11(1): 58-69 Published online Jan 9, 2022. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v11.i1.58
Table 1 Characteristics of electrical burn injuries
Age distribution
Minimum age 18 yr, %
Maximum age 75 yr, %
Sex distribution
Male 94 (91.3)
Female 9 (8.7)
Occupation-related injury
Yes 69 (67)
No 34 (33)
High voltage vs low voltage burns
High voltage 75 (72.8)
Low voltage 28 (27.2)
Table 2 Mechanism of sustained injury
Mechanism of injury
Frequency (n)
Percent (%)
Construction site
6
5.8
Domestic line repair
2
1.9
Farming machinery
8
7.8
Flying kite
2
1.9
Home appliance
15
14.6
Live wire in field
15
14.6
Live wire in factory
7
6.8
Live wire on roof
11
10.7
Loading in truck
3
2.9
Playing
7
6.8
Transformer
22
21.4
Welding
5
4.9
Total
103
100.0
Table 3 Mean number of surgeries performed with standard deviation and percentiles
Number of surgeries
Mean number of surgeries (n)
2.03
SD
0.842
Minimum number of surgeries (n)
1
Maximum number of surgeries (n)
4
Percentiles
25
1.00
50
2.00
75
3.00
Table 4 Mean scores in patients with high voltage and low voltage burns as per various domains at 3 mo, 6 mo and 9 mo
Domain
Voltage (n)
3 mo, mean ± SD
6 mo, mean ± SD
9 mo, mean ± SD
Heat sensitivity
High voltage (49)
12.55 (4.92)
15.14 (4.03)
16.73 (3.41)
Low voltage (24)
15.71 (4.57)
17.46 (3.01)
18.21 (2.13)
Affect
High voltage (49)
16.12 (7.14)
19.00 (6.59)
20.82 (6.77)
Low voltage (24)
23.33 (4.07)
25.46 (3.34)
26.5 (2.72)
Hand function
High voltage (49)
11.29 (6.29)
13.88 (6.25)
15.04 (6.09)
Low voltage (24)
12.08 (5.93)
15.63 (3.94)
17.50 (3.48)
Treatment regimens
High voltage (49)
13.31 (4.35)
14.61 (4.19)
15.9 (4.05)
Low voltage (24)
14.96 (4.71)
16.38 (3.89)
17.29 (3.22)
Work
High voltage (49)
6.33 (5.83)
7.96 (6.11)
8.73 (6.26)
Low voltage (24)
8.83 (5.29)
10.50 (5.32)
11.71 (5.47)
Sexuality
High voltage (49)
8.14 (2.89)
9.24 (2.90)
9.63 (2.95)
Low voltage (24)
10.75 (1.89)
11.21 (1.53)
11.54 (1.10)
Interpersonal relations
High voltage (49)
8.82 (3.97)
10.39 (3.80)
11.69 (3.76)
Low voltage (24)
13.08 (2.80)
14.58 (2.13)
15.08 (1.67)
Simple abilities
High voltage (49)
6.78 (3.08)
8.85 (2.74)
9.98 (2.68)
Low voltage (24)
9.0 (2.6)
10.71 (1.4)
11.46 (1.06)
Body image
High voltage (49)
6.39 (3.19)
8.45 (2.93)
10.37 (2.95)
Low voltage (24)
11.38 (3.28)
13.33 (2.44)
14.50 (1.84)
Table 5P value of the various domains in patients sustaining high voltage vs low voltage electrical burns
Domains
3 mo, t value (P value)
6 mo, t value (P value)
9 mo, t value (P value)
Heat sensitivity
- 2.63 (0.010)
-2.49 (0.015)
- 1.93 (0.057)
Affect
- 4.59 (0.000)
- 4.52 (0.000)
-3.95 (0.000)
Hand function
-0.52 (0.606)
-1.25 (0.215)
-1.84 (0.071)
Treatment regimens
-1.48 (0.142)
-1.73 (0.088)
- 1.47 (0.146)
Work
-1.78 (0.080)
-1.74 (0.086)
-1.98 (0.051)
Sexuality
-4.02 (0.000)
-3.11 (0.003)
-3.06 (0.003)
Interpersonal relations
-4.71 (0.000)
-5.03 (0.000)
-4.21 (0.000)
Simple abilities
-3.04 (0.003)
-3.12 (0.003)
-2.60 (0.011)
Body image
-6.22 (0.000)
-7.05 (0.000)
-6.28 (0.000)
Table 6 Mean scores in patients undergoing amputation and those not undergoing amputation at 3 mo, 6 mo and 9 mo
Domain
Amputee vs non-amputee (n)
3 mo, mean ± SD
6 mo, mean ± SD
9 mo, mean ± SD
Heat sensitivity
Amputee (30)
13.64 (4.77)
16.17 (3.41)
17.47 (3.05)
Non-amputee (43)
13.56 (5.22)
15.72 (4.18)
17.05 (3.18)
Affect
Amputee (30)
14.33 (6.82)
17.80 (6.86)
20.17 (6.91)
Non-amputee (43)
21.40 (5.84)
23.44 (5.08)
24.44 (5.30)
Hand function
Amputee (30)
7.83 (5.77)
11.13 (6.17)
13.17 (6.62)
Non-amputee (43)
14.14 (5.00)
16.77 (3.84)
17.72 (3.51)
Treatment regimens
Amputee (30)
14.13 (4.01)
15.43 (3.62)
16.97 (3.43)
Non-amputee (43)
13.65 (4.86)
15.02 (4.52)
15.93 (4.08)
Work
Amputee (30)
4.47 (4.71)
6.03 (5.38)
7.10 (6.20)
Non-amputee (43)
9.02 (5.70)
10.72 (5.60)
11.53 (5.46)
Sexuality
Amputee (30)
7.93 (3.40)
9.10 (3.33)
9.53 (3.25)
Non-amputee (43)
9.74 (2.16)
10.44 (1.99)
10.77 (2.02)
Interpersonal relations
Amputee (30)
8.17 (3.87)
10.43 (4.01)
11.67 (3.73)
Non-amputee (43)
11.65 (3.72)
12.70 (3.54)
13.60 (3.30)
Simple abilities
Amputee (30)
5.40 (2.88)
7.87 (2.86)
9.27 (3.01)
Non-amputee (43)
8.98 (2.31)
10.62 (1.41)
11.3 (1.30)
Body image
Amputee (30)
7.03 (3.80)
9.10 (3.52)
11.23 (3.21)
Non-amputee (43)
8.72 (3.99)
10.72 (3.55)
12.07 (3.31)
Table 7P value of the various domains among amputees and non-amputees
Domains
3 mo, t value (P value)
6 mo, t value (P value)
9 mo, t value (P value)
Heat sensitivity
-0.063 (0.950)
-0.482 (0.631)
-0.564 (0.574)
Affect
4.743 (0.000)
4.040 (0.000)
2.989 (0.004)
Hand function
4.973 (0.000)
4.810 (0.000)
3.814 (0.000)
Treatment regimens
-0.447 (0.656)
-0.413 (0.681)
-1.139 (0.259)
Work
3.601 (0.001)
3.575 (0.001)
3.230 (0.002)
Sexuality
2.781 (0.007)
2.153 (0.035)
2.001 (0.049)
Interpersonal relations
3.872 (0.000)
2.549 (0.013)
2.340 (0.022)
Simple abilities
5.868 (0.000)
5.390 (0.000)
3.952 (0.000)
Body image
1.814 (0.074)
1.927 (0.058)
1.076 (0.286)
Citation: Gandhi G, Parashar A, Sharma RK. Epidemiology of electrical burns and its impact on quality of life - the developing world scenario. World J Crit Care Med 2022; 11(1): 58-69