Seyyed Mohamad Motamed Shariati - Department of plastic surgery, Faculty of medicine, Mashhad University of Medical science, Mashhad, IRAN
Amir Mirhaghi - School of Nursing, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Mashhad, IRAN

Background: General practitioners are the first who visit burn patients and they first calculate burn size and required fluid for the patient. Error in calculation can be disastrous. The purpose of this study is to compare four methods of estimating burn size to teach students. Methods: This is a descriptive-analytic study on 37 medical students. Four methods of estimating burn percentage was taught to all students. Students individually estimated four different burn wounds by Rule of nines, patient’s palm, clinician’s palm, and Lund-Browder chart. Students’ results were recorded for the whole body and for organs separately. Data was analyzed by ANOVA test with repeated measures and by SPSS 16. Results: There was a significant difference in 4 methods of estimating burn wound size. Maximum standard deviation in estimation was in patient’s palm method and minimum was in Lund-Browder chart method. Range of improper body surface burn size was 4 to 17 percent. There was a correlation between Lund-Browder chart and rules of nine methods. Wounds larger than 20% were underestimated. There was no significant relationship between the estimation of burn size with gender, average, and body mass index of the students. Conclusion: Considering that failing to use Lund-Browder chart in estimating burn size can decrease the effectiveness of treatment, it is essential to inform general physicians in continuing medical education courses about the importance of choosing the right method to estimate burn size.

Burn, burn size, rule of nines