What are the visual distinctions between thermal burns and frostbite?
Is it possible to definitively distinguish the two from each other in all cases, or do they present identically in many cases? In other words, are frostbite injuries-for all intents and purposes, actual burns and if they are not, in what ways do they differ?
Early frostbite and minor burns may resemble one another visually (by whitened, blanched looking skin, and blister formation). However, last stage frostbite and thermal (heat) burns are very different.
In late stage frostbite, the affected extremity (usually hands and feet, noses, and lips) are cold, firm and lack sensation. As the ice crystals in the cells melt and the ruptured cells pour out their contents, then blisters may form. Since the affected area has basically lost circulation, gangrene sets in rather quickly and the tissue turns black and dry.
Deep (full thickness) heat related burns are surrounded by areas of erythema (reddened skin) and skin with less degrees of burning (there is gradation in the tissue damage). Also, eschar is obviously charred skin tissue forming a scab like structure, and looks nothing like gangrene. The wound bed in a burn leaks plasma constantly, as complete thermal injury can take days to fully manifest. Blistering is pretty immediate with heat related burns of a sufficient degree. Also, in heat burns, proteins are coagulated, something that doesn't happen with cold injuries.
Histologically, under a microscope, the cellular damage from heat looks very different than that of cold (due to the ice crystal formation).
Both frostbite and heat related burns are thermal (temperature) related injuries. Treatment is similar in both cases, with the primary focus of severe cold or heat burns being the prevention of secondary infection, preservation of unaffected tissue, and maintenance of fluid and electrolyte balances. Surgical intervention of severe thermal injuries includes amputation (debriedment/excision) of dead tissue, and possible skin grafting when appropriate.
No related posts.
Comments
One Comment on What are the visual distinctions between thermal burns and frostbite?
-
phantomlimb7 on
Thu, 18th Dec 2008 4:23 pm
Early frostbite and minor burns may resemble one another visually (by whitened, blanched looking skin, and blister formation). However, last stage frostbite and thermal (heat) burns are very different.
In late stage frostbite, the affected extremity (usually hands and feet, noses, and lips) are cold, firm and lack sensation. As the ice crystals in the cells melt and the ruptured cells pour out their contents, then blisters may form. Since the affected area has basically lost circulation, gangrene sets in rather quickly and the tissue turns black and dry.
Deep (full thickness) heat related burns are surrounded by areas of erythema (reddened skin) and skin with less degrees of burning (there is gradation in the tissue damage). Also, eschar is obviously charred skin tissue forming a scab like structure, and looks nothing like gangrene. The wound bed in a burn leaks plasma constantly, as complete thermal injury can take days to fully manifest. Blistering is pretty immediate with heat related burns of a sufficient degree. Also, in heat burns, proteins are coagulated, something that doesn't happen with cold injuries.
Histologically, under a microscope, the cellular damage from heat looks very different than that of cold (due to the ice crystal formation).
Both frostbite and heat related burns are thermal (temperature) related injuries. Treatment is similar in both cases, with the primary focus of severe cold or heat burns being the prevention of secondary infection, preservation of unaffected tissue, and maintenance of fluid and electrolyte balances. Surgical intervention of severe thermal injuries includes amputation (debriedment/excision) of dead tissue, and possible skin grafting when appropriate.
References :
RN
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!


