Investigating the depth of thermal burns in elephants

PREVALENCE, TREATMENT, AND SURVIVAL OF BURNED WILDLIFE PRESENTING TO REHABILITATION FACILITIES FROM 2015 TO 2018

In recent decades, wildfires have increased in frequency and geographic scale across the globe. The human health implications and ecological succession after wildfires are well documented and studied, but there is a lack of empirical research about the direct effects of wildfires on wildlife. Recent wildfires have demonstrated the need to better understand animal burn injuries and innovations in veterinary burn treatment. An online survey was distributed to wildlife rehabilitation facilities internationally to collect baseline information about the number and type of burned wildlife cases admitted, treatments used, and survivorship of wildlife affected by wildfires. Approximately 80% (n = 49) of all respondents (n = 61) reported admitting cases of burned wildlife from 2015 to 2018. Respondents included facilities from six different countries and roughly 43% of facilities reported having a veterinarian on staff. Electrical burns were most commonly reported with 89% of respondents stating that they had seen electrical burns while 38% of respondents reported seeing wildfire-source thermal burns in wildlife patients. Respondents were asked about their frequency of use of different treatment methods. Bandages, colloid fluids, and opioids were used at significantly higher rates at facilities with veterinarians compared with facilities that did not report having a veterinarian; however, survival of burned wildlife patients did not significantly differ based on the factor of having a veterinarian on staff. Long-term and short-term complications were commonly reported for wildlife burn patients; 88% of facilities reported scarring, 81% reported alopecia, and 61% reported sepsis. Burned animals admitted to facilities were reported to have equal odds of dying and surviving. Burn care recommendations have changed considerably in recent decades. This study provided a unique opportunity to compare contemporary recommendations in human medicine with current methods used in wildlife rehabilitation facilities to identify potential areas of further investigation and improvement for wildlife medicine.