Hospital-made diet versus commercial supplement in postburn nutritional support

Abstract

Nutritional support is an important aspect of the management of burn patients. Nutrition supplementation can be achieved either by 'hospital-made' or 'commercial' diets. Commercial diets are efficacious but expensive and sometimes not easily available. This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerance of a hospital-made diet with a commercial diet. Twenty patients with burns ranging from 20-50 per cent TBSA were studied to compare the efficacy and tolerance of the 'hospital-made' diet with 'commercial' preparations. Patients were divided into two groups of 10 each and randomised within each group to receive either a hospital-made diet (five patients) or a commercial diet (five patients). Efficacy of diet was assessed by evaluation of nutritional status, graft take, number of surgical procedures and duration of hospital stay. Tolerance was assessed by recording side effects such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal distention and diarrhoea. Both diets were well tolerated by all patients. There was no significant difference in nutritional status, number of surgical procedures, percentage of graft take and duration of hospital stay on either diet, suggesting that hospital-made diets are similar in efficacy and tolerance but cheaper and more easily available. They are a good alternative to 'commercial' diets, especially in poor patients.