Philip Plettig
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Philip Plettig has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Bernd Hartmann
Burn Center, Department of Plastic Surgery, BG Klinikum Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, 12683 Berlin, Germany
1 shared publication - Claas Güthoff
Centre for Clinical Research BG‐Klinikum Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin Berlin Germany
1 shared publication - David Josuttis
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensiv- und Schmerzmedizin, BG-Klinikum Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland
1 shared publication - Denis Gümbel
Department of Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitative Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, 17471 Greifswald, Germany
1 shared publication - Ida Katinka Lenz
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, BG-Klinikum Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, 12683 Berlin, Germany
1 shared publication - Klaus Hahnenkamp
Department of Anesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, 17475 Greifswald, Germany
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 10 June 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in European Burn Journal
- Vol. 6 (2) , 35
Characterisation of Fluid Administration in Burn Shock—A Retrospective Cohort Analysis
Background: Finding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient’s pre-existing conditions influence requirements. Methods: We analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol. Results: The mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11, p = 0.05) and TBSA (35 vs. 51%, p < 0.001), while patients with a restrictive fluid therapy needed fewer incidences of surgery to cover burn wounds (3.5 vs. 9.0 vs. 7.0, p = 0.008). History of liver disease or alcohol abuse tended to indicate excessive fluid administration. Patients with pre-existing heart failure received restrictive fluid therapy (23 vs. 3 vs. 4%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Individualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.
- 10 June 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in European Burn Journal
- Vol. 6 (2) , 35
Open AccessCharacterisation of Fluid Administration in Burn Shock—A Retrospective Cohort Analysis
Background: Finding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient’s pre-existing conditions influence requirements. Methods: We analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol. Results: The mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11, p = 0.05) and TBSA (35 vs. 51%, p < 0.001), while patients with a restrictive fluid therapy needed fewer incidences of surgery to cover burn wounds (3.5 vs. 9.0 vs. 7.0, p = 0.008). History of liver disease or alcohol abuse tended to indicate excessive fluid administration. Patients with pre-existing heart failure received restrictive fluid therapy (23 vs. 3 vs. 4%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Individualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.