Cutaneous functional units (CFUs) versus total body surface area burned (TBSA) for predicting range of motion outcomes: A comparison of predictive models
Ingrid S. Parry , Janice F. Bell , Jeffrey C. Schneider , Julie T. Bidwell , Sheryl L. Catz , Daniel J. Tancredi
{"title":"Cutaneous functional units (CFUs) versus total body surface area burned (TBSA) for predicting range of motion outcomes: A comparison of predictive models","authors":"Ingrid S. Parry , Janice F. Bell , Jeffrey C. Schneider , Julie T. Bidwell , Sheryl L. Catz , Daniel J. Tancredi","doi":"10.1016/j.burns.2025.107677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Motion-limiting scar contractures are a common and functionally impactful complication after burn injury, but predicting their development remains difficult. While total body surface area (TBSA) burned is a standard metric for burn extent and severity, it does not consider burn location, an important factor impacting joint-level motion. Cutaneous functional units (CFUs) offer a more location-specific and functionally relevant assessment of burn injury characteristics, yet their predictive value for motion outcomes remains underexplored. This study validated clinical prediction models incorporating CFUs and TBSA, separately and together, to compare their predictive performance for motion outcomes after burn injury.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using data from two multi-center studies, we compared the performance of predictive models with CFU, TBSA, and CFU+TBSA. Fractional regression was used to model range of motion as a function of predictors. Models were internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation on a training dataset and externally validated with an independent testing dataset. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The CFU+TBSA model demonstrated the highest discriminatory power (0.7675; 95 % CI: 0.7497–0.79323), which was only slightly higher than the CFU model (0.7673; 95 % CI: 0.7497–0.7915) in the training dataset. Both the CFU and CFU+TBSA models statistically outperformed the TBSA model (0.7558; 95 % CI: 0.7366–0.7914). Validation in an external dataset revealed lower discrimination for all three models (C-statistic 0.6196–0.6322) and no difference between the models. The discriminatory power of all three models improved when analyzing only finger and thumb observations in the training dataset (C-statistic 0.7952–0.8087), with the CFU and CFU+TBSA models again significantly outperforming TBSA.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Models using CFUs demonstrated better predictive performance than the TBSA-only model, indicating that CFUs enhance predictive value for normalized joint-level motion outcomes at hospital discharge. They appear to have particular utility with hand burns. CFUs offer a more granular, location-specific, and functionally relevant assessment than TBSA alone.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50717,"journal":{"name":"Burns","volume":"51 9","pages":"Article 107677"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Burns","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305417925003067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Motion-limiting scar contractures are a common and functionally impactful complication after burn injury, but predicting their development remains difficult. While total body surface area (TBSA) burned is a standard metric for burn extent and severity, it does not consider burn location, an important factor impacting joint-level motion. Cutaneous functional units (CFUs) offer a more location-specific and functionally relevant assessment of burn injury characteristics, yet their predictive value for motion outcomes remains underexplored. This study validated clinical prediction models incorporating CFUs and TBSA, separately and together, to compare their predictive performance for motion outcomes after burn injury.
Methods
Using data from two multi-center studies, we compared the performance of predictive models with CFU, TBSA, and CFU+TBSA. Fractional regression was used to model range of motion as a function of predictors. Models were internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation on a training dataset and externally validated with an independent testing dataset. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated.
Results
The CFU+TBSA model demonstrated the highest discriminatory power (0.7675; 95 % CI: 0.7497–0.79323), which was only slightly higher than the CFU model (0.7673; 95 % CI: 0.7497–0.7915) in the training dataset. Both the CFU and CFU+TBSA models statistically outperformed the TBSA model (0.7558; 95 % CI: 0.7366–0.7914). Validation in an external dataset revealed lower discrimination for all three models (C-statistic 0.6196–0.6322) and no difference between the models. The discriminatory power of all three models improved when analyzing only finger and thumb observations in the training dataset (C-statistic 0.7952–0.8087), with the CFU and CFU+TBSA models again significantly outperforming TBSA.
Conclusion
Models using CFUs demonstrated better predictive performance than the TBSA-only model, indicating that CFUs enhance predictive value for normalized joint-level motion outcomes at hospital discharge. They appear to have particular utility with hand burns. CFUs offer a more granular, location-specific, and functionally relevant assessment than TBSA alone.
期刊介绍:
Burns aims to foster the exchange of information among all engaged in preventing and treating the effects of burns. The journal focuses on clinical, scientific and social aspects of these injuries and covers the prevention of the injury, the epidemiology of such injuries and all aspects of treatment including development of new techniques and technologies and verification of existing ones. Regular features include clinical and scientific papers, state of the art reviews and descriptions of burn-care in practice.
Topics covered by Burns include: the effects of smoke on man and animals, their tissues and cells; the responses to and treatment of patients and animals with chemical injuries to the skin; the biological and clinical effects of cold injuries; surgical techniques which are, or may be relevant to the treatment of burned patients during the acute or reconstructive phase following injury; well controlled laboratory studies of the effectiveness of anti-microbial agents on infection and new materials on scarring and healing; inflammatory responses to injury, effectiveness of related agents and other compounds used to modify the physiological and cellular responses to the injury; experimental studies of burns and the outcome of burn wound healing; regenerative medicine concerning the skin.