KKKelly A. A. Kwa

Kelly A. A. Kwa

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

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


Kelly A. A. Kwa has a total of 26 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    The Role of Burn Centers in the Treatment of Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections: A Nationwide Dutch Study

    by Jaco Suijker, Lisca Wurfbain, Anouk M L H Emmen, Anouk Pijpe, Kelly A A Kwa, Cornelis H van der Vlies, Marianne K Nieuwenhuis, Paul P M van Zuijlen, Annebeth Meij-De Vries

    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.


  • Doxepin cream is not effective in reducing itch in burn scar patients: A multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical crossover trial

    by K.A.A. Kwa, C.M. Legemate, A. Pijpe, A. Meij-De Vries, E. Middelkoop, M.E. van Baar, R.S. Breederveld, M.K. Nieuwenhuis


  • A systematic review on surgical and nonsurgical debridement techniques of burn wounds

    by K.A.A. Kwa, H. Goei, R.S. Breederveld, E. Middelkoop, C.H. van der Vlies, M.E. van Baar


  • Patterns and predictors of burn scar outcome in the first 12 months after burn: The patient’s perspective

    by Z.M. Rashaan, K.A.A. Kwa, M.B.A. van der Wal, W.E. Tuinebreijer, P.P.M. van Zuijlen, R.S. Breederveld


  • Open Access

    Long-term scar quality after hydrosurgical versus conventional debridement of deep dermal burns (HyCon trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

    by Catherine M. Legemate, Harold Goei, Esther Middelkoop, Irma M. M. H. Oen, Tim H. J. Nijhuis, Kelly A. A. Kwa, Paul P. M. van Zuijlen, Gerard I. J. M. Beerthuizen, Marianne K. Nieuwenhuis, Margriet E. van Baar, et al.

    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.