The Parkland Formula Under Fire : Is the Criticism Justified?
Controversy has continued regarding the practicality and accuracy of the Parkland burn formula since its introduction over 35 years ago. The best guide for adequacy of resuscitation is urine output (UOP) per hour. A retrospective study of patients resuscitated with the Parkland formula was conducted...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of burn care & research 2008, Vol.29 (1), p.180-186 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Controversy has continued regarding the practicality and accuracy of the Parkland burn formula since its introduction over 35 years ago. The best guide for adequacy of resuscitation is urine output (UOP) per hour. A retrospective study of patients resuscitated with the Parkland formula was conducted to determine the accuracy (calculated vs. actual volume) based on UOP. A review of burn resuscitation from a single institution over 15 years was conducted. The Parkland formula was defined as fluid resuscitation of 3.7 to 4.3 ml/kg/% total body surface area (TBSA) burn in the first 24 hours. Adequate resuscitation was defined as UOP of 0.5 to 1.0 ml/kg/hr. Over-resuscitation was defined as UOP > 1.0 ml/kg/hr. Patients were stratified according to UOP. Burns more than 19% TBSA were included. Electrical burns, trauma, and children ( |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1559-047X 1559-0488 |
DOI: | 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31815f5a62 |