- Open Access
Enzymatic debridement shall not modify the global strategy for mass burn events
Military Medical Research volume 9, Article number: 66 (2022)
We read with interest the letter by Surowiecka et al.  about early burn wound excision in mass casualty events. We couldn’t agree more with their statement about the benefit of early burn wound excision. Still, we doubt whether applying this strategy to every patient during a mass burn event could be realistic. Of note, while there is an undisputed consensus that early burn wound excision is the gold standard of burn care, what ‘early’ actually means is still debated. Depending on the authors, the corresponding time limit typically varies from 24 h to a few days [2, 3].
Regarding the enzymatic debridement (ED) role in massive burn casualties, we are not convinced of its particular benefit. Indeed, it could spare surgical and operating room time for excision procedures. However, its correct use is known to have a learning curve upon implementation and is limited to specialized burn teams . As such, burn centers and teams able to provide this highly trained resource will likely be saturated in a massive burn casualty event. ED would not automatically relieve Burn Intensive Care Unit saturation and does not necessarily ease their workload as they would have to spend time and resources on applying bromelain enzyme and the resulting added number of dressing changes in the ward. Although the operating room might be physically relieved from the workload, the burn ward’s anaesthetist, nursing, and surgical staff would be very much burdened by an intense workload .
We agree with the idea that ED would probably be useful for mild to intermediate severity burns that do not require Intensive Care Unit or intermediate level care and can be managed in a surgical ward. Even for those patients, ED should not be considered a magic bullet as the workload may only be transferred to another activity. Indeed, wound care with ED can be complex and painful and may require general anaesthesia or sedation. Such advanced care cannot easily be provided in a random surgical room.
Severe burns require very extensive hospital stays, typically more than one hospital day per percent total burn surface area, and are normally cared for in highly specialized burn centers . There is a limited number of such specialized burn centers in each country. The key challenge in burn mass casualty incidents is the saturation of both specialized facilities and non-specialized facilities where casualties have been initially admitted. For the former, ED may be a valuable tool to help optimize operating room utilization, yet with the aforementioned limits. For the latter, ED is unlikely to be of help and could even worsen the resulting local chaos. Introducing unfamiliar care protocols in a disaster setting is not recommendable. On the contrary, it should rather be a priority to keep the chosen care methods in a disaster as close to normal-day routine care as possible. Sound disaster management principles applied to such situations advocate early patient transfer to burn centers. This should be the optimal way of achieving early and adequate burn wound excision, surgical or enzymatic, without impairing further patient management and increasing the burden on first-line non-specialized hospitals.
From a military point of view, we do not know about any health service policy that implements early excision for combat wounds, i.e., burn excision by forward surgical teams. Seemingly, they have all implemented an early evacuation (within 3 d) to homeland facilities where excision will be performed . ED couldn’t be used in this particular setting until patients are admitted to homeland facilities, limiting the potential benefit. Once again, the bromelain enzyme could hardly be applied for military casualties for several reasons. No specially trained teams are available in field hospital theatres, nor could ED be applied by dedicated burn evacuation teams during the flight without considerable safety concerns.
We want to stress that the overall strategy for mass burn casualty events is to evaluate patients and evacuate the most severe patients whose medical condition is compatible with medical evacuation as soon as possible, best in the first 72 h. This strategy allows to spare the most scarce national resources: the specialized burn centers with highly trained surgical and intensivist teams [7, 8].
The potential benefit of ED seems to be limited to a small group of casualties and should, therefore, not modify the global strategy for mass burn events.
Availability of data and materials
Surowiecka A, Korzeniowski T, Strużyna J. Early burn wound excision in mass casualty events. Mil Med Res. 2022;9(1):42.
Ong YS, Samuel M, Song C. Meta-analysis of early excision of burns. Burns. 2006;32(2):145–50.
Wong L, Rajandram R, Allorto N. Systematic review of excision and grafting in burns: comparing outcomes of early and late surgery in low and high-income countries. Burns. 2021;47(8):1705–13.
Hirche C, Kreken Almeland S, Dheansa B, Fuchs P, Governa M, Hoeksema H, et al. Eschar removal by bromelain based enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid®) in burns: European consensus guidelines update. Burns. 2020;46(4):782–96.
American Burn Association. Burn incidence and treatment in the United States: 2016. http://www.ameriburn.org/resources_factsheet.php. Accessed 3 Dec 2018.
Renz EM, Cancio LC, Barillo DJ, White CE, Albrecht MC, Thompson CK, et al. Long range transport of war-related burn casualties. J Trauma. 2008;64(2 Suppl):S136–44.
Almeland SK, Depoortere E, Jennes S, Sjöberg F, Lozano Basanta JA, Zanatta S, et al. Burn mass casualty incidents in Europe: a European response plan within the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Burns. 2022;S0305-4179(22)00191-7.
Hughes A, Almeland SK, Leclerc T, Ogura T, Hayashi M, Mills JA, et al. Recommendations for burns care in mass casualty incidents: WHO Emergency Medical Teams Technical Working Group on Burns (WHO TWGB) 2017–2020. Burns. 2021;47(2):349–70.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Donat, N., Leclerc, T. & Almeland, S.K. Enzymatic debridement shall not modify the global strategy for mass burn events. Military Med Res 9, 66 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-022-00427-7
- Enzymatic debridement (ED)
- Burn care
- Mass causality
- Burn surgery