{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04118673647469459, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0387434554973822, 'mean_word_length': 4.287822878228782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
118 Comparison of Contact and Scald Burns in a Porcine Model


 
 
 Whether the depth and healing of scalds and contact burns are similar is controversial. Prior studies have not compared scalds and contact burns using identical temperatures and durations of exposure limiting direct comparison. We hypothesized that when exposed to similar temepratures and durations of exposure, burns caused by hot water and contact with hot metal would be similar.
 
 
 
 Multiple 2.5 or 5 cm diameter standardized cutaneous burns were created in two anesthetized female domestic pigs (~45kg) using a brass bar or circulating heated water in replicates. The temperatures were controlled and kept constant using thermosensors. In one pig, the temperature was kept constant (95 degrees C) while the duration of exposure varied (5, 10, 15 sec.) In the second pig, the exposure time was kept constant (10 sec.) while the temperature of exposure varied (70, 80, 98 degrees C). Burns were covered with a topical antibiotic ointment and frequent dressing changes were performed for 4 weeks. Periodic punch biospies were taken to determine burn depth immediately after injury, percentage burns reepithelialized within 21 days, and depth of scar at 28 days. Analysis was performed using analysis of variance.
 
 
 
 When temperature was held constant, duration of exposure (5, 10, and 15 sec.) was associated with scar depth (2.1 vs 3.8 vs 5.0 mm respectively, P=0.001) and there was a trend for an association with burn depth (2.0 vs 2.2 vs 2.3 mm respectively, P=0.10). When exposure duration was held constant, temperature (70, 80, 98 degrees C) was associated with scar depth (0.6 vs 1.7 vs 3.6, P< 0.001) but not significantly associated with burn depth (1.2 vs 1.5 vs 1.7 mm respectively, P=0.21). For each pig a comparison of burn and scar depth by device generally showed that depths were greater for scald than contact burns although not significantly greater. Only scar depth in the first pig showed a difference with a significance of less than 0.10 (2.9 for contact vs 4.1 mm for scalds, P=0.08). After controlling for temperature the difference between scalds and contact burns was statistically significant (marginal means 3.0 for contact burns, 4.3 for scalds, P=0.008). When combining data from both pigs and controlling for temperatures and duration, scar depths for scalds (2.7 mm) vs contacts (1.9 mm) showed a significant difference (P=0.02) while burn depth was not quite significant (1.7 vs 1.5 mm, P=0.07). Almost all burns were reepithelialized by day 21.
 
 
 
 Burns created in swine with circulating hot water tend to be deeper and result in deeper scars than those created by contact with a brass bar when controlling for temperature and duration of exposure.
 
 
 
 Scalds of similar temperature and exposure times result in deeper scars than contact burns.
