Investigating the possibility of using noninvasive basic monitoring in patients with acute burns undergoing general anesthesia


1 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain, Iran University of Medical Sciences and Motahari Hospital, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences and Motahari Hospital, Tehran, Iran

3 Faculty of Dentist, Qom Medical University, Qom, Iran

4 Faculty of Biological Science, Tarbyat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran


Background: Basic noninvasive monitoring is considered as the standard procedure in patients with acute burns under general anesthesia. In such cases, noninvasive monitoring probes may often be ineffective on damaged skin due to the nature of burns pathology. Hence, the noninvasive monitoring is very challenging. Because of such limitations, we conducted this study to examine the practical difficulties or possibility of noninvasive monitoring utilization. Methods: Over the period of 2016–2017, 100 patients who were injured by acute burns with 20%–90% of TBS and undergoing general anesthesia at Motahari Burn Hospital were enrolled in this descriptive study. Basic monitoring techniques including noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP), cardiac monitoring, and pulse oximetry were applied throughout all surgeries as much as possible. Results: Evidence demonstrated that the application of NIBP monitoring in 23% of cases, cardiac monitoring in 63% of patients, and also even pulse oximetry in 7% of them were impossible. Conclusion: Limited usage of invasive monitoring due to vulnerability to sepsis leads to the noninvasive approach. Hence, technical innovations in noninvasive monitoring may help clinicians to monitor physiological indices, more safely.


1. Scheer BV, Perel A, Pfeiffer UJ. Clinical review: Complications and risk factors of peripheral arterial catheters used for hemodynamic monitoring in anesthesia and intensive care medicine. Critical Care 2002;6:198‑204.
2. Cömert A, Hyttinen J. Investigating the possible effect of electrode support structure on motion artifact in wearable bioelectric signal monitoring. Biomed Eng Online 2015;14:44.
3. Emerson RG, Adams DC. Intraoperative monitoring. Current practice of clinical electroencephalography, 3rd ed.J. S. Ebersole and T. A. Pedley. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2003. p. 936-954.
4. Eichhorn JH, Cooper JB, Cullen DJ, Maier WR, Philip JH, Seeman RG. Standards for patient monitoring during anesthesia at Harvard Medical School. JAMA 1986;256:1017‑20.
5. Tao L, Zhou J, Gong Y, Liu W, Long T, Huang X, et al. Risk factors for central line‑associated bloodstream infection in patients with major burns and the efficacy of the topical application of mupirocin at the central venous catheter exit site. Burns 2015;41:1831‑8.
6. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Intraoperative Awareness. Practice advisory for intraoperative awareness and brain function monitoring: A report by the American society of anesthesiologists task force on intraoperative awareness. Anesthesiology 2006;104:847‑64.
7. Ravidran Ram S, A solution to monitoring electrocardiograph in patients with extensive burn injury, American Society of anesthesiologists, 1997;87:711‑2.
8. Sofos SS, Tehrani H, Shokrollahi K, James MI. Surgical staple as a transcutaneous transducer for ECG electrodes in burnt skin: safe surgical monitoring in major burns. Burns 2013;39:818‑9