share email twitter ⋅ join discord whatsapp(2ck)
Free 120  NBME 24  NBME 23  NBME 22  NBME 21  NBME 20  NBME 19  NBME 18  NBME 17  NBME 16  NBME 15  NBME 13 
introducing : the “predict me” score predictor NEW!
Welcome to tiagob’s page.
Contributor score: 0


Comments ...




Subcomments ...

unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

iknS eodprvis niautiosnl nad enpstrev htae olss. iThs ieastp'nt dybo lilw toseanecmp fro rnasedcei tare fo ateh lsos yb cnesginiar teicmablo arte.

davidw  This is directly from Goljan I) Hypovolemic shock may occur due to loss of plasma from the burn surface (refer to Chapter 5). • Loss of protein from the plasma loss may result in generalized pitting edema. II) Infection of the wound site and sepsis may occur. (a) Sepsis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common cause of infection in burn patients. (b) Other pathogens include methicillin-resistant S. aureus and Candida species. (3) Curling ulcers may occur in the proximal duodenum (refer to Chapter 18). (4) Hypermetabolic syndrome may occur if >40% of the body surface is burned. +12  
yex  Can someone explain why is it not increased ECF? +24  
charcot_bouchard  i picked same. Increased ECF but cant remember why. Can you explain WHY it is increased ECF? what was ur reasoning +2  
isotopes  Burns would lead to a decrease in ECF because the protection from fluid loss is absent; it can lead to shock. :) +2  
tinydoc  My reasoning behind picking ↑ ECV was that your losing fluid but not electrolytes with the burn ⇒ the ecv would have increased osmolarity, so the fluid from the ICV would be pushed the the ECV. It made sense to me at the time. I guess technically its wrong because the loss of fluids and the gain of fluids would amount to pretty much the same thing. But the insulation and heat loss thing makes sense I guess. +  
yex  Increased ECF, bc I was thinking about the edema formation.... :-/ +3  
atbangura  I picked increased ECF because burns increase the capillary permeability coefficient, but now that I am going over it I realized that increasing the permeability would only transfer plasma volume to the interstitial volume, which are both a part of the ECF so therefore ECF would not change. SMH +5  
aisel1787  thanks +  
69_nbme_420  Burns (and Diarrhea) cause ISOsmotic volume contraction; Costanzo BRS Physio +  
tiagob  in severe burned patient, also has increased fluid in third spacing or interstitial (leading EDEMA). Different extracellular space is interstitial and vascular +  
peridot  I also wanted to add, another huge job of the skin is to prevent loss of fluid. Burn patients are easily dehydrated because they've lost that barrier. This helped me lean away from increased ECV - despite the edema (from one compartment to another) as others have mentioned above, there is a loss in overall ECV due to evaporation from body. +  


submitted by bubbles(69),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

ceScn.strlaooo-.. utsesid pramoce a oprug fo eppelo ithw eth seeisad adn a grpuo fo plpoee htotwiu eht sesidae. m'I otn rseu I sndnertdau hyw uyo acn call epoepl danlyrom nad llca atth a toclron pu.rog Whta fi angom esoht leclda nomla,rdy esom of hetm vahe olsa dha ochmhrgeair rke?sost

impostersyndromel1000  this is one of those Qs where you just dont over think it and focus on your first point, that they are comparing a group with the disease vs (potentially) one without it. Thats what i took from it at least (sorry fi this is too late) +3  
tiagob  Why is not Cohort ? since it compares groups exposed to drug X? +  
djinn  Cohort studies determines end of disease and CC determines begins +3