Focus on Skin and Wounds in Neonates and Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing wounds in neonates is different than in children or adults and deserves special considerations. Neonatal skin is physiologically and developmentally different, and some skin characteristics are dependent on gestational age.1 For example, skin barrier function increases with gestational age; the epidermis is mature by 34 weeks’ gestation, but preterm infants take 2 to 3 weeks longer to reach this maturity.2 The skin of preterm infants has less functionality and thus a higher risk of injury. Not only does skin development affect neonatal outcomes, but the wound causes are also unique. Pediatric specialists should consider several factors when called to assess a newborn with wounds. Evaluate if wounds are the result of skin fragility influenced by genetic disorders including epidermolysis bullosa or some types of ichthyosis. Consider facility-acquired pressure injury incidence and prevalence (as in this issue’s Open Access article on pressure injuries in the pediatric population by Delmore et al) and extrinsic factors such as medical devices.3,4 This evaluation may involve previous surgeries, immobility, sepsis, and other events. Finally, iatrogenic etiologies include chemical burns from antiseptics, access line extravasation injuries, or medical adhesive-related skin injury.5,6 Although institutional protocols for neonatal skin care vary, published guidelines address practices including bathing, moisturizing, umbilical cord handling, sterilization, and diapering7 and often include specific recommendations for preterm infants.8 However, there is limited guidance regarding the use of dressings. In this issue, Keswani et al provide a comprehensive review of wound care products for neonates. Both this CE/CME article and a recently published white paper3 provide important references for neonatal healthcare providers. Because many products exist with varying costs and availability, learn about product categories, know their properties, and anticipate possible scenarios in which a product category might be indicated. Formularies may guide practice, but choosing among products remains an important skill in need of development. Be familiar with atraumatic dressings and tapes, adhesive remover products, and the correct way to remove tape to help prevent injuries. Further, monitor neonates for possible complications including irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. Potential causes of irritant contact dermatitis include leakage of bodily fluids, as well as antiseptics, adhesives, occlusive topical ointments or creams, and some dressings. Another important consideration is the systemic absorption of topical medications.3 Adverse effects include silver-related leukopenia or argyria with silver sulfadiazine cream, aminoglycoside-related ototoxicity from gentamicin or neomycin, and iodine-induced thyroid disorders.9 Prilocaine-related methemoglobinemia from EMLA cream (Astra USA, Inc, Westborough, Massachusetts) can often be prevented; avoid formulation in infants less than 37 weeks’ gestational age and in children younger than 1 year who are on drugs that can induce methemoglobinemia.10 The need for topical medications should be considered carefully; adhere to the minimum required frequency and duration, in addition to limiting the area and amount of product being applied. If significant absorption is suspected, confirm the plasma concentration of the drug and promptly discontinue the offending agent. We hope you enjoy this focused issue supporting best practice care for your vulnerable neonatal and pediatric patients. Irene Lara-Corrales, MD, MSc Cathryn J. Sibbald, MD, MSc, FRCPC Elizabeth A. Ayello, PhD, MS, BSN, RN, CWON, ETN, MAPWCA, FAAN Gary R. Sibbald, MD, DSc (Hons), MEd, BSc, FRCPC (Med Derm), FAAD, MAPWCA, JM
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".