This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Créteil's Experience

Jean Revuz, MD; Jean-Claude Roujeau, MD; Jean-Claude Guillaume, MD; Dominique Penso, MD; René Touraine, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1987;123(9):1156-1158.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

For a long time, experience of the treatment of toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) was limited to occasional patients. The advent of specialized care units has led to larger series and consequent improvements in therapy. Since the principal causes of death in TEN are sepsis and hypovolemia,^1,2 control of infection and fluid balance are of vital importance.³

The management of TEN and second-degree burns have often been compared,^4-9 and although many of the principles are the same, there are three important differences. First, in TEN, mucous membrane involvement usually antedates skin necrolysis, hindering eating and drinking for several days before admission and worsening the fluid deficit. Second, systemic involvement renders the patient with TEN sicker than a patient with equally extensive burns. Third, the dissemination of cutaneous lesions often leaves no healthy area for venous access, enhancing the risk of sepsis.

FLUID BALANCE

Approximate fluid loss is estimated . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Service de Dermatologie Hôpital Henri Mondor Université Paris Val-de Marne 94010 Créteil, France

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?