Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Following Minor Burns: A Rare but Significant Complication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor, We wish to highlight an uncommon yet impactful complication in burn care: complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) following relatively minor burn injuries. While most partial-thickness burn wounds heal satisfactorily, and scars mature with standard protocols, the onset of CRPS introduces unique challenges requiring early recognition and multidisciplinary treatment to optimize patient outcomes. Complex regional pain syndrome is a chronic neuropathic pain condition that can develop after trauma, including minor burns.1–3 We report 3 illustrative cases of CRPS following isolated superficial partial-thickness burn injuries to the feet, emphasizing the importance of vigilance and timely intervention. A 45-year-old man sustained partial-thickness scald burns to the dorsum of his feet from boiling water, which healed within 2 weeks with minimal scarring. A month after healing, he presented with severe pain disproportionate to the injury, accompanied by swelling, color changes, and hypersensitivity (Figure 1). He required crutches to walk. In a second example, A 38-year-old woman with superficial partial-thickness burns to both feet reported persistent pain 2 months after wound healing. Symptoms included intense burning pain, allodynia, and autonomic changes such as sweating and trophic skin abnormalities. In a further, example a 38-year-old male sustained a small 2 by 1-cm wound to the dorsum of the ankle after cement was spilled into his boot. It was debrided and healed after a month with dressings alone (Figure 2). He presented to the burn service 6 months later with a small scar but could not weight bear without pain and swelling, sensitivity and a “pins and needles” sensation in the region, and had not been able to return to work.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".