[Model aeroplanes: a not to be ignored source of complex injuries]

With the incidence of work-related injuries decreasing, we continue to observe an unchanged trend in leisure-related accidents. As in any other hobby, model flying devices bear the risk for accidents among builders and flyers ranging from skin lacerations to complicated and even life-threatening injuries. The fast-moving razor-sharp propeller blades predominantly cause trauma to the hands and fingers resulting in typical multiple parallel skin injuries also affecting structures deep to the dermis (e. g., tendons, vessels and nerves). The resultant clinical management involves complex reconstructive surgical procedures and prolonged rehabilitative follow-up. Improving the legal framework (e. g., warnings by the manufacturer) on the one hand, providing informative action and sensitising those affected on the other, should form a basis for an altered prevention strategy to reduce model flying device-related injuries in the future.

The properties of the "ideal" donor site dressing: results of a worldwide online survey

Split skin grafting is a widely used technique for reconstructing skin defects. Although a vast number of different coverage options for donor sites have become available in daily clinical practice, no optimum dressing material has been found to date. For this reason, we conducted a globally-distributed online survey to poll for the properties of such an "ideal" donor site dressing, possibly leading to an improved clinically-driven direction of future wound dressing developments. A total of 69 respondents from 34 countries took part in the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 13.8% (69/500) over a 1-month period. The majority of respondents rated the characteristics of an "ideal" donor site dressing to be either "essential" or "desirable" as follows: lack of adhesion to the wound bed ("essential": 31/69, 44.9%; "desirable": 30/69, 43.5%); pain-free dressing changes ("essential": 38/69, 55.1%; "desirable": 30/69, 43.5%); absorbency ("essential": 27/69, 39.1%; "desirable": 33/69, 47.8%); ease of removal ("essential": 37/69, 53.6%; "desirable": 27/69, 39.13%). With regard to the desired frequency of dressing changes, respondents preferred "no dressing change until the donor site has healed" (51/69, 73.9%) in the majority of cases, followed by "twice weekly" (10/69, 14.5%), "alternate days" (5/69, 7.2%) and "daily" (3/69, 4.3%). With regard to the design of the dressing material, the majority of participants preferred a one-piece (composite) dressing product (44/69, 63.8%). The majority of respondents also denied the current availability of an "ideal" donor site dressing (49/69, 71%). The strength of this study was the remarkable geographic distribution of responses; all parts of the world were included and participated. We believe that this globally conducted online survey has polled for the properties of the "ideal" donor site dressing and possibly will lead to an improved clinically-driven direction of future wound dressing development.