Practice Guidelines for the Management
of Electrical Injuries
Brett Arnoldo, MD,* Matthew Klein, MD† Nicole S. Gibran, MD
There has been increasing emphasis on the development of practice guidelines and validated measurements to evaluate surgical practice. Initiatives such as
the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
(NSQIP) have demonstrated the importance of an
outcome-based approach to improving surgical care.
The development of guidelines and outcome-based
benchmarks requires established standards of practice
that should be based on level I data from welldesigned prospective randomized trials.
Electrical burns are potentially devastating injuries
with both short- and long-term sequelae. In 2001, the
American Burn Association published a set of practice
guidelines for various aspects of burn care in the Journal
of Burn Care and Rehabilitation. However, guidelines
for the management of electrical burns were not included. Two fundamental—and controversial—issues
in the management of electrical burns are cardiac monitoring and evaluation and treatment of the injured upper extremity. We have reviewed and analyzed the available literature in an effort to develop practice guidelines
for these two important issues.
SECTION I: CARDIAC MONITORING
AFTER ELECTRICAL INJURIES
Recommendations
Standards. An electrocardiogram (ECG) should
be performed on all patients who sustain electrical
injuries (high and low voltage).
Guidelines
1. Children and adults who sustain low-voltage
electrical injuries, have no ECG abnormalities,
From the *University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,
Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas; and †University of
Washington Burn Center, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.
Address correspondence to Nicole S. Gibran, MD, University of
Washington Burn Center, Harborview Medical Center, Box
359796, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Copyright © 2006 by the American Burn Association.
1559-047X/2006
DOI: 10.1097/01.BCR.0000226250.26567.4C
no history of loss of consciousness, and no other
indications for admission (ie, soft-tissue injury),
can be discharged from the emergency room.
2. All patients with history of loss of consciousness
or documented dysrhythmia either before or after admission to the emergency room should be
admitted for telemetry monitoring. Patients
with ECG evidence of ischemia should be admitted and placed on cardiac monitors.
3. Creatine kinase enzyme levels, including MB
fraction, are not reliable indicators of cardiac
injury after electrical burns and should not be
used in decisions regarding patient disposition.
Insufficient data exists on troponin levels to formulate a guideline.
Options. Electrical injuries can result in potentially
fatal cardiac dysrhythmias. The need for cardiac evaluation and subsequent cardiac monitoring are critical
components in electrical burn management. Most patients who sustain electrical injuries undergo ECG
evaluation, and patients with documented dysrhythmias, cardiac ischemia, or history of loss of consciousness will be admitted to the hospital for further evaluation and monitoring. However, the appropriate
cardiac diagnostic tests and the indications for hospital admission, necessity of cardiac monitoring, and
appropriate duration of cardiac monitoring have not
been well established.
OVERVIEW
Purpose
The purpose of this guideline review is to review the current data on practices for diagnosing cardiac injury and
indications for cardiac monitoring after electrical injury.
Users
These guidelines are designed to aid physicians in making
decisions regarding patient disposition, diagnostic tests
and management of patients following electrical injury.
439
Journal of Burn Care & Research
July/August 2006
440 Arnoldo et al
Clinical Problem
The potential for development of cardiac dysrhythmia, cardiac arrest, and myocardial damage after electrical injury has been well documented.1–5 Cardiac
dysrhythmias, cardiac standstill, and myocardial injury can occur after both low- (⬍1000 V) and highvoltage (⬎1000 V) injury. The potential for cardiac
dysrhythmia and injury has prompted routine cardiac
evaluation and low threshold for patient admission
and of all patients who sustain electrical injury.
Whereas obtaining an ECG is a well-established component of the early evaluation of patients after electrical injury, the indications for patient admission
and appropriate duration of cardiac monitoring
have been less clear. Traditionally, patients with
low-voltage injuries who have normal ECGs and no
history of loss of consciousness are discharged from
the hospital. However, appropriate management of
patients who sustain high-voltage injuries has not
been well defined. Generally, patients who have a
history of loss of consciousness, ECG abnormalities,
or have injuries that would otherwise require admission are admitted to the hospital and are placed on
telemetry monitors. There are several issues related to
the cardiac evaluation and monitoring that need to be
addressed: 1) Should all patients with high-voltage
electrical injuries be admitted to the hospital, even if
there is no evidence of cardiac abnormality? 2) What
is the role of cardiac enzymes in the evaluation and
management of electrical injuries? 3) How long
should patients be monitored on telemetry?
Process
A Medline search was conducted of all available literature from 1966 to 2004 using the key words electrical, burns, cardiac, monitoring. In addition, several
articles were not identified in the Medline search but
were referenced in the articles reviewed and were
found to be relevant: a total of 27 articles were reviewed and found to be relevant.
References were classified as Class 1 evidence (prospective, randomized, controlled trials); Class II evidence (prospective or retrospective studies based on
clearly reliable data); Class III evidence (evidence
provided by clinical series, comparative studies, case
reviews or reports); or as a technology assessment (a
study that examined the utility/reliability of a particular technology).
Scientific Foundation
Cardiac Abnormalities. All studies reviewed confirmed that cardiac abnormalities—including dysrhythmias and myocardial damage— occur after both
low-voltage and high-voltage injuries, reinforcing the
need for ECG evaluation of all patients. Nonspecific
ST-T changes were the most common ECG abnormality,2,6,7 and atrial fibrillation was the most common dysrhythmia.
Criteria for Admission
Admission and cardiac monitoring for patients with
history of loss of consciousness, ECG abnormalities,
or with other indications for admission (ie, TBSA
burned, need for extremity monitoring) are standard
practices in all series of electrical injuries reviewed. In
addition, the majority of patients with low-voltage
injuries and normal ECG are discharged home from
the emergency room without complication. The
safety of this practice also was confirmed in two series
of pediatric patients.1,8 The possible exceptions include patients with other injuries that require hospitalization or children with an oral burn that would
require monitoring for labial artery bleeding.
Virtually all patients with high-voltage injuries are
admitted for cardiac monitoring; however, it is unclear whether this step is necessary. With increasing
emphasis on cost-effectiveness, the routine admission
of all patients with high-voltage injury must be questioned. Hunt,9 Bailey et al,1 and Arrowsmith et al10
reported that all cardiac irregularities were evident
either on admission to the emergency room or within
several hours of hospitalization and in 1986, Purdue
and Hunt5 reported that no serious arrhythmias occurred in any patient who a normal ECG on admission. Taken together, these studies suggest that a
negative initial evaluation could obviate the need for
hospital admission solely for cardiac monitoring.
However, these were observations based on retrospective data and are inadequate to form the basis of
a practice guideline. On the basis of their findings,
Purdue and Hunt5 generated the following set of
admission criteria for electrically injured patients: 1)
loss of consciousness or cardiac arrest in the field; 2)
documented cardiac arrhythmia in the field; 3) abnormal ECG; or 4) a separate indication for admission. They applied these criteria prospectively to 10
consecutive patients and reported no complications.
This study is the first to investigate not routinely
monitoring patients who sustained high-voltage
injuries. However, this series is too small to affect
practice.
One study suggested that presentation of cardiac
abnormalities could be delayed. Jensen et al11 reported three patients with a delay in the onset of
symptoms after low-voltage (two patients) and highvoltage (one patient) injuries. All presented to the
emergency room only after they developed chest pain
Journal of Burn Care & Research
Volume 27, Number 4
and palpitations. However, none of the patients had
ECGs or any sort of evaluation at the time of injury
and, therefore, this study does not provide substantive evidence of truly late dysrhythmia presentation.
Duration of Monitoring
No published studies have directly studied the appropriate duration of telemetry monitoring after injury.
Several series reported monitoring for 24 hours after
admission if there were no ECG abnormalities on
admission or monitoring for 24 hours after resolution
of dysrhythmias.1,8,12 Arrowsmith et al10 reported
that all patients with dysrhythmias resolved within
48 hours of admission either spontaneously or with
pharmacologic intervention. However, there are no
data available to formulate appropriate management
guidelines for this issue.
Utility of Creatine Kinase
Creatine kinase levels frequently are obtained after
electrical injury. CK has long been used as an indicator of muscle injury and can help in determining the
extent of extremity muscle injury. The MB subunit
has been reported to be more specific for myocardium
and, therefore, has been used to evaluate cardiac injury after electrical injury. Only one study reported a
reliable correlation between serum CK-MB levels and
cardiac injury. Chandra et al6 reported that the time
course of the MB fraction increase and decrease was a
reliable indicator of cardiac ischemia. However, this
study does not correlate the elevated enzyme levels with
any other study of cardiac injury. Conversely, the evidence of poor or questionable correlation was quite
strong. Several studies demonstrated that CK-MB
levels poorly predict cardiac injury and that the
elevated enzyme levels likely result from noncardiac muscle injury.7,13–15 Housinger et al7 suggested that positive MB fractions in the absence of ECG
findings should be interpreted with caution because
they may not signify cardiac injury. Given the paucity of
evidence supporting the utility of CK-MB levels, this
laboratory value should not be used as a diagnostic
criterion for cardiac injury after electrical injury.
SUMMARY
The current practices of admitting patients with history of loss of consciousness, documented dysrhythmia in the field, or ECG abnormalities are well
supported in the literature. Similarly, discharging
patients from the emergency room with low-voltage
injuries and normal ECGs is well established. However, few data are available to support establishment
of guidelines for the management of patients with
Arnoldo et al
441
high-voltage injuries and normal ECGs. The two
studies that addressed this question have population
sizes that are too small to support changes in practice.
Future prospective and randomized studies (as described herein) are needed to effectively establish
practice guidelines. In addition, there is inadequate
evidence to formulate guidelines for the duration of
monitoring for patients with ECG abnormalities.
Sufficient data are available to conclude that
CK-MB is an unreliable diagnostic test for cardiac
injury after electrical injury. The presence of skeletal
muscle injury in these patients confounds the results
of this laboratory test. No studies identified in this
review examined the specificity and utility of troponin
levels in determining cardiac injury.
Key Issues for Further Evaluation
1. Utility of troponin: CK and CK-MB not specific
for cardiac muscle. Insufficient data exists evaluating the utility of troponin in assessing cardiac
injury.
2. Duration of monitoring: insufficient data exists
to determine the optimal duration of telemetry
monitoring after electrical injury for patients
who have abnormal ECGs or history of loss of
consciousness. There have been no studies that
directly examined this specific question.
3. Admission for high-voltage injuries: insufficient
data exists to establish guidelines for whether to
admit patients who sustain high-voltage injuries
but have normal ECG’s and no history of loss of
consciousness. The available data suggest that
these patients could be discharged but further,
prospective evaluation is required.
Evidentiary Table
Studies on the practices of cardiac evaluation and
monitoring are summarized in Table 1.
II. EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT
OF THE UPPER EXTREMITY
Recommendations
Standards. Insufficient data exist to support a
treatment standard for this topic.
Guidelines
1. Patients with high-voltage electrical injury to
the upper extremity should be referred to specialized burn centers experienced with these injuries as per American Burn Association referral
criteria.
2. Indications for surgical decompression include
progressive neurologic dysfunction, vascular
Journal of Burn Care & Research
July/August 2006
442 Arnoldo et al
Table 1. Evidence table
Reference
Study Description
Data Class
Conclusions/Comments
Ahrenholz et al,
198813
Retrospective study of 125 patients
admitted with electrical injuries
II
Demonstrated that there is a poor correlation between
elevated CK-MB levels and cardiac injury
Arrowsmith et al,
199710
Retrospective study of 145 patients
admitted with electrical injuries to
determine incidence of cardiac
complications
II
All patients with cardiac complications had them at the
time of admission. Patients with normal ECG and no
loss of consciousness do not require admission for
cardiac monitoring
Bailey et al,
199543
Retrospective review of 141 children
admitted to the emergency department
with household electrical injuries
II
Children with normal ECG and low voltage injuries do
not require cardiac monitoring. Authors also suggested
that ECG is not indicated for children with low-voltage
injuries, no loss of consciousness, no tetany, no water
contact, and no current crossing the heart region
Bailey et al,
20001
Prospective evaluation of a set of admission
guidelines after electrical injury.
Guidelines were applied to a total of 224
patients
II
Guidelines for admission were used in the majority of
cases. According to the guidelines, all patients with
high-voltage injuries were admitted, as were patients
with low-voltage injuries with ECG abnormalities, past
cardiac history, water contact, and tetany
Chandra et al,
19906
Prospective evaluation of 34 patients
admitted with high-voltage electrical
injuries to determine predictors of
myocardial damage
II
Time course of CK-MB elevation in patients with
electrical injuries suggests that it is cardiac in etiology.
ECG may not be reliable for diagnosing myocardial
damage
Cunningham,
199144
Retrospective study of 70 patients admitted
with electrical injury
II
Discharged all patients with low-voltage injuries who are
asymptomatic and had normal ECG without
complication
Guinard et al,
198715
Prospective evaluation of 10 patients
admitted with electrical injuries
III
Demonstrated poor reliability of CK-MB to identify
cardiac injuries
Housinger et al,
19857
Prospective study of 16 patients to determine
incidence of possible myocardial damage
following electrical burn
III
Demonstrated poor correlation between elevation of
CK-MB levels and ECG abnormalities. Pyrophosphate
scans were used as diagnostic standard for cardiac
injury
Hunt et al,
19809
Retrospective review of 102 patients with
high-voltage injuries
II
All cardiac abnormalities were evident either on
admission of within several hours of hospitalization
Jensen et al,
198711
Three case reports of late presentation of
cardiac abnormalities after electrical injury
III
Three patients with late presentation of cardiac
abnormalities. However, none of the patients were
evaluated immediately after injury
Lewin et al,
19834
Case report of 19-year old patient with
myocardial injury after electrical injury
III
Demonstrated correlation of CK-MB levels with ECG
abnormalities and myocardial injury
Purdue and Hunt,
19865
Retrospective study of 48 patients admitted
with high-voltage injuries. On the basis of
these findings, a prospective study of 10
patients applying guidelines for admission
II
Designed a protocol for determining which patients
should be admitted following high voltage injury. No
complications following discharge of patients with high
voltage injuries and no other indications for
admission.Comment: First study to demonstrate safety of
discharging patients with high-voltage injuries and
normal ECGs. However, small group of patients studied
Wallace et al,
19958
Retrospective study of 35 pediatric patients
with both low and high voltage injuries
II
Children with low-voltage injuries and normal ECGs can
be discharged. However, all patients with high-voltage
injuries were admitted and monitored
Zubair et al,
199712
Retrospective study of 127 pediatric patients
with low- and high-voltage injuries
II
Recommend 4 hours of monitoring for all patients before
discharge and admission of all patients with highvoltage injuries, loss of consciousness, or ECG
abnormalities
Journal of Burn Care & Research
Volume 27, Number 4
compromise, increased compartment pressure,
and systemic clinical deterioration from suspected ongoing myonecrosis. Decompression
includes forearm fasciotomy and assessment of
muscle compartments. The decision to include
a carpal tunnel release should be made on a
case-by-case basis.
Options. There are several methods to evaluate the
injured extremity. Compartment pressures may be
measured as an adjunct to clinical examination. Pressures greater than 30 mm Hg, or tissue pressure
reaching within 10 to 20 mm Hg of diastolic pressure, may be used as evidence of increased compartment pressure and potential deep-tissue injury, indicating the need for surgical decompression in the
appropriate clinical setting. Technetium-99m pyrophosphate scan may be used as an adjunct to clinical
examination at centers experienced with this technology. Doppler flow meter can be used as an adjunct to
assess extremity perfusion. It should not be relied on
as the sole indicator of deep-tissue viability and adequate perfusion.
OVERVIEW
Purpose
The purpose of this guideline is to review the principles of monitoring and treatment of high-voltage
electrical burn injury to the upper extremity. The upper extremity is commonly injured after high-voltage
electrical and carries with it a high rate of morbidity.
Clinical Problem
Burns resulting from high-voltage electric current
(⬎1000 V) often are associated with a greater degree
of deep-tissue injury than is initially appreciated. As a
result these rather infrequent injuries, which make up
only 3% to 12% of burn center admissions,16 are associated with high amputation rates and greater use
of resources than comparable %TBSA cutaneous
burns.6,10,17 Unnecessary exploration can increase
morbidity, length of stay, and the use of scarce resources. Delayed exploration and decompression in
the compromised extremity, however, may result in
increased amputation rates along with increased organ failure and mortality.31
Process
A Medline search from 1966 to the present was used
to evaluate monitoring and the need for early exploration and fasciotomy in electrical injury to the extremity. A search for the key words, “electrical injury,” “fasciotomy,” “compartment syndrome,”
Arnoldo et al
443
“compartment pressure,” “Doppler flow meter,”
“technetium 99m pyrophosphate,” “infrared photoplethysmography,” and “burn injury” was performed, and relevant articles were reviewed. Studies of patients with lower-extremity injuries were
included because of the scarcity of data involving exclusively the upper extremity. An attempt was made
however to analyze the data involving the upper extremity exclusively where possible.
Scientific Foundation
Electrical injuries, including lightning strikes, should
be referred to a specialized burn center as per American Burn Association criteria.18 Many surgeons advocate immediate surgical exploration (usually within
the first 24 hours), and decompression of patients
with high-voltage electrical injuries.19,20 –32 Early exploration, fasciotomy, and débridment are followed
by serial débridment of necrotic tissue and subsequent closure. These studies are somewhat difficult to
interpret; however, because of the differences in the
degree of injury no prospective, randomized, controlled trials evaluating immediate exploration have
been performed. The rational for this aggressive approach relates to thermal mechanics. Joule’s law defining the amount of power (heat) delivered to an
object:
Power (J-Joule) ⫽ I2 (Current) times R (Resistance).
Accordingly, deep muscle necrosis can occur in the
muscle adjacent to bone, which has a high resistance.33–35 Failure to perform adequate fasciotomy
and to evaluate all muscle compartments may lead to
misdiagnosis of deep thermal injury.20 This approach
however, commits the patient to several operations
and may prolong hospital stay and morbidity.
In the d’Amato20 series, six patients underwent
emergency exploratory surgery and amputation for
obvious necrotic extremities, followed by serial débridment. No patient required an amputation for
misdiagnosed deep muscle necrosis. However,
missed injury was present in two patients, who required further surgical intervention, although neither
required amputation because of the missed injury.
Parshley’s series evaluated 41 patients with 27 extremities explored. Amputation rate was 40% with 10
extremities salvaged, which the authors attribute to
early aggressive operative intervention. Haberal’s series of 94 patients had an amputation rate of 43%. The
authors attributed this high amputation rate in part
because of a delay in surgical exploration as a result of
patients being transferred from nonspecialized facilities. Achauer et al21 reported a series of 22 patients
with an amputation rate of 40%. They recommend
“extensive debridement of all damaged tissue and ex-
Journal of Burn Care & Research
July/August 2006
444 Arnoldo et al
Table 2. Evidentiary table: high-voltage electric injury to upper extremity
Reference
Description
Data Class
Comments
Quinby et al,
197825
Retrospective review of 44 patients
divided into 22 with electric arc and
22 with flow of current
II
Luce et al,
198426
Parshley et al,
198522
Achauer et al,
199421
Mann et al,
199631
Retrospective review of 31 patients
II
Retrospective review 41 patients with
passage of current
Retrospective analysis of electric injury
of the hand in 22 patients
Retrospective review 62 patients with
high voltage upper extremity injury
II
Yowler et al,
199832
Retrospective chart review 51 patients
with high voltage injuries to the
upper and lower extremity
III
DiVincenti et al,
196924
Retrospective review of 65 electrical
injuries over 17 years, upper and
lower extremities included, high and
low voltage injuries included
Retrospective review of 182 cases over
twenty years. Includes high voltage
and low voltage injuries
III
Mann et al,
197527
Series of 8 patients with high voltage
injury. Includes upper and lower
extremities
III
Early decompression fasciotomy and debridement.
Amputations done on at least one extremity in all patients
D’Amato et al,
199420
Series of 6 patients with high voltage
upper extremity injury
III
Hussmann et al,
199545
Retrospective evaluation of 38 high
voltage injuries. Included upper and
lower extremity
Evaluation of wick catheter to measure
intramuscular compartment
pressures (IMP) in 31 extremities in
18 patients, compared with clinical
and Doppler findings
Prospective evaluation of ultrasonic
flowmeter to assess circulatory
changes in 60 limbs in 24 patients
with circumferential burns
Evaluated post-mortem intrinsic
muscle biopsies following extremity
burns. Presence of necrosis was
similar in patients with (72.2%) and
without (66%) escharotomies
III
Mandatory exploration of forearm and hand compartments
following initial resuscitation. All patients required
amputation
Early serial debridement of obviously necrotic tissue,
fasciotomy including carpal tunnel release for “compartment
syndrome” 39 amputations performed in 38 patients
Recommended routine measurement of IMP as a more
sensitive than Doppler pulses, and use of a threshold value
of 30 mmHg for performance of escharotomy
Butler et al,
197723
Saffle et al,
198035
Moylan et al,
197136
Salisbury et al,
197437
II
II
III
II
II
II/III
In conductive burns with entrance site in hand, incision was
carried from hand to interconnect the arc burns at wrist,
elbow, and shoulder. Fasciotomies done if muscle
discolored, or tense, transverse carpal ligament release done.
Amputation rate 68%
Fasciotomy and wound exploration and debridement within
24 hours of admission Amputation rate 35.5%
Early fasciotomy in patients with passage of current
Amputation rate 40%
Extensive debridement and compartment release almost always
done on day of injury. Amputation rate 40%
Fasciotomy indications: severe pain and loss of arterial
Doppler signal, neurologic deterioration, systemic clinical
deterioration from suspected ongoing myonecrosis. Carpal
tunnel release performed along with fasciotomy. 16 of 62
patients (25.8%) required emergent decompression within
first 24 hours. Amputation rate in these patients 45%.
Overall amputation rate 10%
Indications for fasciotomy: Elevated muscle compartment
pressure greater than 30 mmHg. Neurologic dysfunction,
vascular compromise, extensive deep burn. 11 patients
under went 18 major amputations
Early fasciotomy indicated for cyanosis of distal uninjured skin,
impaired capillary refill, progressive neurologic change,
brawny edema and muscle compartment tightness.
Amputation rate 32.5%
40 patients underwent an average of 5 operations. Marked
swelling of the wrist and hand, the volar carpal ligament is
divided at time of extremity fasciotomy. Amputation rate
65%
Escharotomy is indicated when Doppler flow is absent in distal
arteries or arches. Note: This paper documents that Doppler
pulses can be present in the face of clinical evidence of tissue
compression and ischemia
Muscle ischemia or necrosis can occur with intact pulses and even
following escharotomy. Note: since this was a post-mortem
study, tissue necrosis may have been a non specific finding
(Continued)
Journal of Burn Care & Research
Volume 27, Number 4
Arnoldo et al
445
Table 2. (Continued)
Reference
Description
Data Class
Comments
Smith et al,
198438
Prospective evaluation of infrared
photoplethysmography (PPG) to
evaluate vascular status in burned
extremities and compared with IMP,
Doppler, and muscle blood flow
(MBF). PPG correlated well with
IMP and MBF, but poorly with
Doppler with changes noted with
IMP ⬎30 mm Hg
III
Advocated use of PPG as a noninvasive method of assessing
vascular compromise. This study supports an IMP ⱖ30 mm
Hg as an appropriate threshold for escharotomy in burned
extremities
Chen et al,
200339
High resolution color and pulse
Doppler ultrasonography used to
determine burn wound area in 12
patients with deep electrical injury
III
Different tissue found to have differing degree of injury.
Concluded that ultrasound could demonstrate morphologic
changes in subcutaneous tissue, muscle, and blood vessels
after deep electric injury
Hunt et al,
197940
Technetium-99 m pyrophosphate scans
performed in 14 patients with high
voltage electrical injury. Scans were
performed between first and fifth day
post injury
II
Location and extent of muscle injury was correctly ascertained
preoperatively in all patients
Affleck et al,
200141
Retrospective review of computerized
registry identified 11 patients who
underwent Pyrophosphate (PyP)
scan. Eight patients had high voltage
electrical injury, one had frostbite,
and two had soft-tissue infection
III
Revealed a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 100% showing
demarcation between viable and nonviable tissue, confirmed
at operation
Hammond et al,
199442
Early scanning (within 3 days of injury)
with PyP in 19 limbs in 15 patients
with electrical injury. Sensitivity of
75% and specificity of 100%
II
Compared to control group of 17 patients treated without
PyP scan, the scan was not associated with reduced length
of stay, or with decreased number of surgical procedures
tensive compartment release done as an emergency
(almost always on the day of injury).” Luce reported
a series of 31 patients with an extremity amputation
rate of 35.5% who “were taken to the operating room
within 24 hours of admission.” In the DiVincenti et
al24 series of 65 patients, there was an amputation rate
of 32.5%. There are no studies that specifically evaluated the impact of timing on treatment outcome.
Some recent literature has supported a more selective approach to management may reduce the number of operative interventions and subsequently the
morbidity of high voltage electrical injury.31,32 Mann
et al31 followed a selective management algorithm for
upper-extremity high-voltage electrical injury. Indications for surgical decompression included extremities that exhibited progressive peripheral nerve dysfunction, clinical manifestations of compartment
syndrome, or injury sufficient to cause difficulty in
resuscitating the patient. Sixty-two patients had a total of 100 upper-extremity injuries. Early (within 24
hours of admission), surgical decompression was required in 22% of injured upper extremities. An am-
putation was ultimately required in 10% of the extremities. Extremities that were not decompressed
immediately did not require amputation. The amputation rate for those patients requiring immediate surgical decompression was 45%. This amputation rate is
similar to previous studies, which appear to include
patients with lesser degree of injury. In the series from
the Army Institute of Surgical research,32 51 patients
with high-voltage injury were managed selectively.
Indications for operative intervention were evidence
of neurologic dysfunction, vascular compromise, extensive deep burn, or increased muscle compartment
pressures (repeated measurements ⬎30 mm Hg). A
total of 11 patients (21.6%) underwent 18 major extremity amputations.
No precedent exists in the literature for measuring
compartment pressures in the setting of high-voltage
upper-extremity electrical injury. Some surgeons advocate their use, however, on the basis of the orthopedic and vascular literature.33,34 Measurement of
compartment pressures in circumferential extremity
burn wounds has been recommended by Saffle et al.35
Journal of Burn Care & Research
July/August 2006
446 Arnoldo et al
A wick-catheter technique was used to measure intramuscular pressures. A threshold of 30 mm Hg was an
indication for escharotomy (based on vascular compartment syndrome literature). Whether or not this
can be extrapolated to include electric injury is unclear. In addition, Moylan et al36 showed that ultrasonic (Doppler flow meter) signal from the distal arteries and palmar arch was a more sensitive indicator
of perfusion than clinical palpation. Salisbury37 demonstrated, however, that this objective measure of
perfusion could not be relied on as the sole indicator
of deep tissue viability and need for escharotomy in
circumferential burns. Therefore, more sensitive indicators of perfusion have been investigated.
Small studies have evaluated the use of infrared
photoplethysmography (PPG) to assess vascular
compromise in injured extremities, including direct
vascular injury, crushing forces, and severe burns.38
PPG correlated well with muscle blood flow, and intramuscular pressure, but not with Doppler measurements.
Recently, high-resolution color and pulse Doppler
ultrasound has been used to evaluate wound area in
electrical injuries.39 In this study, 12 patients with
deep electric injury were evaluated. It was found that
degree of injury differed between tissue types.
Changes in course, and blood flow speed also were
noted in injured tissue. Findings were all confirmed at
subsequent operation.
Some authors recommend the use of nuclear medicine scans in an attempt to identify areas of muscle
necrosis.40,41 Other studies have questioned the utility of nuclear scans in this setting. They have fallen
out of favor in routine cases,42 although some centers
reported use of this modality selectively.
SUMMARY
No definitive data exist to show that immediate surgical decompression reduces the need for amputation
in any series. The management of these patients has
traditionally included immediate (within the first 24
hours), surgical exploration and decompression. A
more selective approach based on clinical findings
may be used at specialized centers.
Key Issues for Further Evaluation
Evaluation of the Upper Extremity. Studies to
evaluate the utility of measuring compartment pressures in the presence of electrical injury need to be
performed. It is unclear whether data from the orthopedic and vascular literature can be extrapolated to
burn care. In addition, studies evaluating more noninvasive technologies, such as infrared PPG and high-
resolution ultrasound, may add much-needed clarity
to this clinical problem.
Surgical Management. Prospective randomized
studies that evaluate immediate vs expectant débridment using well-defined criteria would be useful in
defining guidelines for surgical management of the
injured extremity.
Evidentiary Table. Table 2 summarizes research
on the monitoring and treatment of high-voltage upper-extremity injury.
REFERENCES
1. Bailey B, Gaudreault P, Thiviege RL. Experience with guidelines for cardiac monitoring after electrical injury in children.
Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:671–5.
2. Das KM. Electrocardiographic changes following electrical
shock. Ind J Pediatr 1974;41:192–4.
3. DiVincenti FC, Moncrief JA, Pruitt BA. Electrical injuries: a
review of 65 cases. J Trauma 1969;9:497.
4. Lewin RF, Arditti A, Sclarovsky S. Non-invasive evaluation of
electrical cardiac injury. Br Heart J 1983;49:190–2.
5. Purdue GF, Hunt JL. Electrocardiographic monitoring after
electrical injury: necessity of luxury. J Trauma 1986;26:166.
6. Chandra NC, Siu CO, Munster AM. Clinical predictors of
myocardial damage after high voltage electrical injury. Crit
Care Med 1990;18:293–7.
7. Housinger TA, Green L, Shahanigan S, Saffle JR, Warden
GD. A prospective study of myocardial damage in electrical
injuries. J Trauma 1985;25:122.
8. Zubair M, Bessner GE. Pediatric electrical burns: management strategies. Burns 1997;23:413–20.
9. Hunt JL, Sato RM, Baxter CR. Acute electric burns. Arch
Surg 1980;115:434–8.
10. Arrowsmith J, Usgaocar RP, Dickson WA. Electrical injury
and frequency of cardiac complications. Burns 1997;23:
676–8.
11. Jensen PJ, Thomsen PEB, Bagger JP, Norgaard A, Baandrup
U. Electrical injury causing ventricular arrhythmias. Br
Heart J 1987;57:279–83.
12. Wallace BH, Cone JB, Vanderpool RD, et al. Retrospective
evaluation of admission criteria for paediatric electrical injuries. Burns 1995;21:590.
13. Ahrenholz DH, Schubert W, Solem LD. Creatine kinase as a
prognostic indicator in electrical injury. Surgery 1988;104:
741–7.
14. Baxter CR. Present concepts in the management of major
electrical injury. Surg Clin N Am 1970;50:1401–18.
15. Guinard JP, Chiolero R, Buchser E, et al. Myocardial injury
after electrical burns: short and long term study. Scand J Plast
Reconstr Surg 1987;21:301–2.
16. Vazquez D, Solano I, Pages E, Garcia L, Serra J. Thoracic disc
herniation, cord compression, paraplegia caused by electrical
injury: case report and review of the literature. J Trauma
1994;37:328–32.
17. Arnoldo BA, Purdue GP, Kowalske K, et al. Electrical
injuries: a 20-year review. J Burn Care Rehabil 2004;25:
479–84.
18. American Burn Association. Advanced Burn and Life Support
Course. Chicago: American Burn Association; 2001.
19. Haberal M. Electrical burns: a five-year experience—1985
Evans lecture. J Trauma 1986;26:103–9.
20. d’Amato TA, Kaplan IB, Britt LD. High-voltage electrical
injury: a role for mandatory exploration of deep muscle compartments. J Natl Med Assoc 1994;86:535–7.
21. Achauer B, Applebaum R, Vander Kam VM. Electrical burn
injury to the upper extremity. Br J Plast Surg 1994;47:331–40.
22. Parshley P, Kilgore J, Pulito JF, Smiley PW, Miller SH. Ag-
Journal of Burn Care & Research
Volume 27, Number 4
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
gressive approach to the extremity damaged by electric current. Am J Surg 1985;150:78–82.
Butler E, Gant TD. Electrical injuries, with special reference
to the upper extremities. Am J Surg 1977;134:95–101.
DiVincenti F, Moncrieff JA, Pruitt BA. Electrical injuries: a
review of 65 cases. J Trauma 1969;9:497–507.
Quinby WJ, Burke JF, Trelstad RL, Caulfield J. The use of
microscopy as a guide to primary excision of high tension
electrical burns. J Trauma 1978;18:423–9.
Luce E, Gottlieb SE. “True” high-tension electrical injuries.
Ann Plast Surg 1984;12:321–6.
Mann RJ, Wallquist JM. Early fasciotomy in the treatment of
high-voltage electrical burns of the extremities. South Med J
1975;68:1103–8.
Chilbert M, Maiman DJ, Sances Jr., A, et al. Measures of
tissue resistivity in experimental electrical burns. Trauma
1985;25:209–15.
Lee LC, Kolodney MS. Electrical injury mechanisms: dynamics
of the thermal response. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;80:663–71.
Zelt RG, Daniel RK, Ballard PA, Grissette Y, Heroux P.
High-voltage electrical injury: chronic wound evolution.
Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;82:1027–39.
Mann R, Gibran N, Engrav L, Heimbach D. Is immediate
decompression of high voltage electrical injuries to the upper
extremity always necessary. J Trauma 1996;40(4):584–9.
Yowler CJ, Mozingo DW, Ryan JB, Pruitt BA. Factors contributing to delayed extremity amputation in burn patients.
J Trauma 1998;45:522–6.
Heckman M, Whitesides TJ, Grewe S, Judd R, Miller M,
Lawrence JD. Histologic determination of the ischemic
threshold of muscle in the canine compartment syndrome
model. J Ortho Trauma 1993;7:199.
Quinn R, Ruby S. Compartment syndrome after elective revascularization for chronic ischemia. A case report and review
of the literature. Arch Surg 1992;127:865.
Arnoldo et al
447
35. Saffle J, Zeluff G, Warden G. Intra-muscular pressure in the
burned arm: measurement and response to escharotomy.
Am J Surg 1980;140:825–31.
36. Moylan J, Wellford W, Pruitt B. Circulator changes following
circumferential extremity burns evaluated by ultrasonic
flowmeter: An analysis of 60 thermally injured limbs.
J Trauma 1971;11:763–849.
37. Salisbury R, McKeel D, Mason A. Ischemic necrosis of the
intrinsic muscles of the hand after thermal injuries. J Bone
Joint Surg 1974;56A:1701–7.
38. Smith Jr., D, Bendick PJ, Madison S. Evaluation of vascular
compromise in the injured extremity: a photoplethysmographic technique. J Hand Surg 1984;9:314–9.
39. Chen YX, Xu Y, Guo ZR, et al. The application of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of deep electric injury. Zhonghua Shao
Shang Za Zhi 2003;19(1):38–41.
40. Hunt JL, Lewis S, Parkey R, Baxter C. The use of technetium-99m stannous pyrophosphate scintigraphy to identify
muscle damage in acute electric burns. J Trauma 1978;19:
409–13.
41. Affleck DG, Edelman L, Morris SE, Saffle JR. Assessment of
tissue viability in complex extremity injuries: utility of the
pyrophosphate nuclear scan. J Trauma 2001;50:263–9.
42. Hammond JW, Ward W. The use of technetium-99 pyrophosphate scanning in the management of high-voltage electric injuries. Am Surg 1994;60:886–8.
43. Bailey B, Gaudreault P, Thiviege RL, Turgeon JP. Cardiac
monitoring of children with household electrical injuries.
Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:612–7.
44. Cunningham PA. The need for cardiac monitoring after
electrical injury. Med J Aust 1991;154:765–6.
45. Hussmann J, Kucan JO, Russell RC, et al. Electrical injuries,
morbidity, outcome and treatment rationale. Burns 1995;21:
530–35.