E-cigarette burn injuries: Comprehensive review and management guidelines proposal

Abstract

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes (EC) have been reported to be associated with burns secondary to explosions of the device or battery, or contact from overheating, resulting in flame, contact or chemical burns. In addition to this, there have also been reported cases of soft tissue and bony trauma with or without associated burns. Using collective evidence, this review aims to summarise all reported burns associated with ECs, and its implications on immediate management with a particular focus on surgical treatment.

Methods: A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE and Medline for all case reports, case series and letters to editors published since 2014, using terms "electronic cigarette", "e-cigarette", "vaping" and "burn". The search was repeated by the co-author to avoid bias and a review of the bibliographies of each paper was conducted to ensure all relevant cases were included. The mechanisms, type and severity of burn injury, and management and treatment outcomes of the patients were recorded. Exclusion criteria included non-English articles, explosions with no associated burn and publications with insufficient information.

Results: 90 patients from 19 case series or case reports were included. With the exception of one study, gender was recorded with a male predominance (95.6%). Mean age is 30.1years (range 18-59). The most common type of burn was flame. However, there were reports of chemical burns associated with ECs. The mean total body surface area (TBSA) affected was 4.9% (range 1-27.25%) with the majority of burns being mixed partial and full thickness. 22 patients underwent excision and autologous skin grafting within range of three to 21days. One patient had a full thickness contact burn excised and closed, one patient received a xenograft following debridement and one had biosynthetic skin dressing. 42 patients were managed conservatively with dressings or ointments.

Discussion: In this review over a three-year period (2015-2017), 90 cases of EC related burn injuries were reported, however, this is likely an underestimation of the problem. The suggested mechanism for EC related injuries is battery malfunction. ECs are powered by Lithium ion batteries which are susceptible to "thermal runaway" reactions, which result in device overheating with potential for subsequent explosion. We explain hypothesized triggers for these reactions and mechanisms of other injuries associated with ECs such as chemical burns and blast injury.

Conclusion: EC-associated burn injury results in combined thermal and chemical burns, which should be managed in tandem. Explosion injuries sustained whilst using the device may result in both facial trauma or inhalation injury and therefore should be reviewed with a high index of clinical suspicion. It is noted that there is no agreed standard for management for such burns by specialist bodies in the UK. We suggested a treatment algorithm to provide guidance for the burn injuries associated with ECs.