Kelly A. A. Kwa
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Kelly A. A. Kwa has a total of 26 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Margriet E. van Baar
Alliance of Dutch Burn Care (ADBC), Burn Centre, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
3 shared publications - Marianne K. Nieuwenhuis
Alliance of Dutch Burn Care (ADBC), Burn Center, Martini Hospital, 9728 NT Groningen, The Netherlands
3 shared publications - Paulus Petrus Maria van Zuijlen
Alliance of Dutch Burn Care, Burn Centre, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, the Netherlands
3 shared publications - Annebeth Meij-De Vries
Alliance of Dutch Burn Care, Burn Center Beverwijk, Red Cross Hospital, Vondellaan 13, 1942 LE Beverwijk, The Netherlands
2 shared publications - Anouk Pijpe
Alliance of Dutch Burn Care, Burn Center Beverwijk, Red Cross Hospital, Vondellaan 13, 1942 LE Beverwijk, The Netherlands
2 shared publications - Catherine M. Legemate
Burn Centre, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Vrije Univeristeit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 25 May 2023
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Journal of Burn Care & Research
- Vol. 44 (6) , 1405-1412
The Role of Burn Centers in the Treatment of Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections: A Nationwide Dutch Study
Patients with extensive and complex wounds due to Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections (NSTI) may be referred to a burn center. This study describes the characteristics, outcomes, as well as diagnostic challenges of these patients. Patients admitted to three hospitals with a burn center for the treatment of NSTI in a 5-year period were included. Eighty patients (median age 54 years, 60% male) were identified, of whom 30 (38%) were referred by other centers, usually after survival of the initial septic phase. Those referred from other centers, compared to those primarily admitted to the study hospitals, were more likely to have group A streptococcal involvement (62% vs 35%, p = .02), larger wounds (median 7% vs 2% total body surface area, p < .001), and a longer length of stay (median 49 vs 22 days, p < .001). Despite a high incidence of septic shock (50%), the mortality rate was low (12%) for those primarily admitted. Approximately half (53%) of the patients were initially misdiagnosed upon presentation, which was associated with delay to first surgery (16 hours vs 4 hours, p < .001). Those initially misdiagnosed had more (severe) comorbidities, and less frequently reported pain or blue livid discoloration of the skin. This study underlines the burn centers’ function as referral centers for extensively affected patients with NSTI. Besides the unique wound and reconstructive expertise, the low mortality rate indicates these centers provide adequate acute care as well. A major remaining challenge remains recognition of the disease upon presentation. Future studies in which factors associated with misdiagnosis are explored are needed.
- 25 May 2023
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Journal of Burn Care & Research
- Vol. 44 (6) , 1405-1412
Open AccessThe Role of Burn Centers in the Treatment of Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections: A Nationwide Dutch Study
Patients with extensive and complex wounds due to Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections (NSTI) may be referred to a burn center. This study describes the characteristics, outcomes, as well as diagnostic challenges of these patients. Patients admitted to three hospitals with a burn center for the treatment of NSTI in a 5-year period were included. Eighty patients (median age 54 years, 60% male) were identified, of whom 30 (38%) were referred by other centers, usually after survival of the initial septic phase. Those referred from other centers, compared to those primarily admitted to the study hospitals, were more likely to have group A streptococcal involvement (62% vs 35%, p = .02), larger wounds (median 7% vs 2% total body surface area, p < .001), and a longer length of stay (median 49 vs 22 days, p < .001). Despite a high incidence of septic shock (50%), the mortality rate was low (12%) for those primarily admitted. Approximately half (53%) of the patients were initially misdiagnosed upon presentation, which was associated with delay to first surgery (16 hours vs 4 hours, p < .001). Those initially misdiagnosed had more (severe) comorbidities, and less frequently reported pain or blue livid discoloration of the skin. This study underlines the burn centers’ function as referral centers for extensively affected patients with NSTI. Besides the unique wound and reconstructive expertise, the low mortality rate indicates these centers provide adequate acute care as well. A major remaining challenge remains recognition of the disease upon presentation. Future studies in which factors associated with misdiagnosis are explored are needed.
- 1 November 2019
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
- Vol. 72 (11) , 1752-1762
A systematic review on surgical and nonsurgical debridement techniques of burn wounds
- 1 November 2019
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
- Vol. 72 (11) , 1752-1762
A systematic review on surgical and nonsurgical debridement techniques of burn wounds
- Open Access
- 19 April 2018
- Published by Springer Nature in Trials
- Vol. 19 (1) , 239
Long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Deep dermal burns require tangential excision of non-viable tissue and skin grafting to improve wound healing and burn-scar quality. Tangential excision is conventionally performed with a knife, but during the last decade hydrosurgery has become popular as a new tool for tangential excision. Hydrosurgery is generally thought to be a more precise and controlled manner of burn debridement leading to preservation of viable tissue and, therefore, better scar quality. Although scar quality is considered to be one of the most important outcomes in burn surgery today, no randomized controlled study has compared the effect of these two common treatment modalities with scar quality as a primary outcome. The aim of this study is, therefore, to compare long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional tangential excision in deep dermal burns. A multicenter, randomized, intra-patient, controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centers of Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen. All patients with deep dermal burns that require excision and grafting are eligible. Exclusion criteria are: a burn wound < 50 cm2, total body surface area (TBSA) burned > 30%, full-thickness burns, chemical or electrical burns, infected wounds (clinical symptoms in combination with positive wound swabs), insufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language, patients that are unlikely to comply with requirements of the study protocol and follow-up, and patients who are (temporarily) incompetent because of sedation and/or intubation. A total of 137 patients will be included. Comparable wound areas A and B will be appointed, randomized and either excised conventionally with a knife or with the hydrosurgery system. The primary outcome is scar quality measured by the observer score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS); a subjective scar-assessment instrument, consisting of two separate six-item scales (observer and patient) that are both scored on a 10-point rating scale. This study will contribute to the optimal surgical treatment of patients with deep dermal burn wounds. Dutch Trial Register, NTR6232 . Registered on 23 January 2017.
- 19 April 2018
- Published by Springer Nature in Trials
- Vol. 19 (1) , 239
Open AccessLong-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Deep dermal burns require tangential excision of non-viable tissue and skin grafting to improve wound healing and burn-scar quality. Tangential excision is conventionally performed with a knife, but during the last decade hydrosurgery has become popular as a new tool for tangential excision. Hydrosurgery is generally thought to be a more precise and controlled manner of burn debridement leading to preservation of viable tissue and, therefore, better scar quality. Although scar quality is considered to be one of the most important outcomes in burn surgery today, no randomized controlled study has compared the effect of these two common treatment modalities with scar quality as a primary outcome. The aim of this study is, therefore, to compare long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional tangential excision in deep dermal burns. A multicenter, randomized, intra-patient, controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centers of Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen. All patients with deep dermal burns that require excision and grafting are eligible. Exclusion criteria are: a burn wound < 50 cm2, total body surface area (TBSA) burned > 30%, full-thickness burns, chemical or electrical burns, infected wounds (clinical symptoms in combination with positive wound swabs), insufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language, patients that are unlikely to comply with requirements of the study protocol and follow-up, and patients who are (temporarily) incompetent because of sedation and/or intubation. A total of 137 patients will be included. Comparable wound areas A and B will be appointed, randomized and either excised conventionally with a knife or with the hydrosurgery system. The primary outcome is scar quality measured by the observer score of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS); a subjective scar-assessment instrument, consisting of two separate six-item scales (observer and patient) that are both scored on a 10-point rating scale. This study will contribute to the optimal surgical treatment of patients with deep dermal burn wounds. Dutch Trial Register, NTR6232 . Registered on 23 January 2017.