Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In spite of the enormous amount of work that has been done on the subject, the question of a specific toxemia in burns is not yet settled. There are at least six distinct attitudes to be found in the literature: 1. There is no true burn toxemia (Fender,1Lam2). 2. Infection can account for the whole picture of burn toxemia (Aldrich,3Cruickshank,4Marsh,5McSwain,6Wakeley,7Siler8). 3. Hemoconcentration (secondary shock) can account for the whole picture of burn toxemia (Underhill and Kapsinow,9Osterberg and others10). 4. Whatever burn toxemia really is, it cannot be explained solely on the basis of plasma loss and hemoconcentration (McClure,11Elkington,12Boyce,13Harkins,14Lee and Rhoads,15Bosse and associates16). 5. Burn toxemia is a result of hepatic damage caused by anoxia, in turn a result of hemoconcentration and impaired
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John Van Duyn (1945) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: