Burn-pathogen microbiology, epidemiology, and antimicrobial resistance

Overview¶

Infection remains one of the central problems in burn care; bacterial colonization and invasive bacterial infection are repeatedly described as the major causes of morbidity and mortality after a severe burn ^[28]. The destroyed skin barrier, the protein-rich eschar, prolonged hospitalization, repeated instrumentation, and immune dysfunction together convert the burn wound into a culture medium that is colonized within days and, in the largest injuries, eventually invaded. Across the literature spanning five decades, Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been the organism most consistently tied to burn-wound sepsis ^[1], and the spectrum has broadened to include S. aureus, Acinetobacter, Klebsiella and other gram-negative rods, and—later in the course—Candida and filamentous molds.

This page covers what grows, in what proportions, how those proportions shift over the hospital course and across decades, and how resistant the organisms are. It is a microbiology and epidemiology reference, not a diagnostic or treatment protocol. The clinical questions of how to distinguish colonization from invasive infection, how to define burn sepsis, and which systemic regimens to choose are developed on the sibling pages [[burn-wound-infection-diagnosis-pathology]], [[burn-sepsis-definition-biomarkers]], and the parent [[burn-infection-sepsis]]. The unifying theme here is that the burn flora is a moving target: it differs by unit, by era, by burn size, and by time since injury, so the durable clinical anchor is local surveillance rather than any fixed list of organisms.

Epidemiology¶

Dominant organisms¶

Pseudomonas aeruginosa anchors the burn-pathogen list. It emerged as an important nosocomial pathogen across hospitals broadly, causing between 10% and 20% of infections in most institutions, and it is especially prevalent in patients with burn wounds, cystic fibrosis, acute leukemia, organ transplants, and intravenous drug use ^[1]. Contemporary single-center series reproduce its primacy in burns: in one intensive-care cohort P. aeruginosa (26.2%), S. aureus (11.5%), and Candida albicans (7.0%) were the main pathogens ^[6], and in a separate unit P. aeruginosa was the most common isolate (37%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (15%) and Acinetobacter baumannii (12%) among gram-negatives, with S. aureus (12%) the leading gram-positive ^[7]. A large isolate survey recovering 287 bacterial species found P. aeruginosa the most frequent gram-negative and S. epidermidis the most frequent gram-positive species ^[8]. The same four-organism core—Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus, Acinetobacter, Klebsiella—recurs across geographically diverse units, which is why empiric reasoning in burns starts from this short list rather than the broader hospital antibiogram.

Burden and risk¶

Nosocomial infection in burns is frequent and often polymicrobial. A pediatric burn series reported an incidence of 39.1 nosocomial infections per 1000 patient-days, with two-thirds of infections polymicrobial ^[5], and identified methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (57.7%), wild-type P. aeruginosa (35.9%), and wild-type Enterobacter cloacae (26.9%) as the most common organisms ^[5]. The risk is not uniform across patients: the incidence of burn-wound and other infections increases as the severity of injury increases ^[2], a relationship recognized in the earliest systematic burn-infection work and confirmed by later observations that Pseudomonas colonization rates are higher in patients with larger burns ^[27].

Temporal and unit-to-unit shifts¶

Burn flora is not static. Cross-colonization within a unit drives much of the early acquisition: in classic infection-control work, exogenous colonization rates reached 77% for S. aureus, 52% for Streptococcus species, and 32% for P. aeruginosa, and a change of barrier dress after close-contact nursing delayed first exogenous S. aureus colonization from day 6 to day 14 ^[27]. Over longer horizons the dominant organisms drift. One unit reported a significant decrease in the incidence of gram-positive organisms compared with its earlier study ^[7], while a center tracking antibiotic consumption observed three distinct P. aeruginosa outbreaks over a decade that correlated with rises in the use of anti-pseudomonal antibiotics ^[6]. A Brazilian center comparing 2015–2016 with 2019–2020 found a significant rise in positive cultures from 58.7% to 80% but no change in the leading pathogens or their resistance over that window ^[13]. These shifts are the practical argument for treating the antibiogram as a living document.

Fungal epidemiology¶

Fungal organisms appear later and disproportionately in the sickest patients. Fungal infections of burn wounds have become an important cause of burn-associated morbidity and mortality ^[17]. In one series, 30 fungal isolates were recovered from 26 patients, almost all of whom also had bacterial infection, and the predominant fungi were Aspergillus and Candida species ^[18]; fungal infection was more common with open dressings (25.5%) than occlusive dressings (16.0%) in that cohort ^[18]. Among yeast isolates specifically, a burn-patient series identified Candida albicans as the most common species, followed by C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, and Trichosporon beigelii ^[19], and noted that significantly immunocompromised hosts—including those with cancer, AIDS, and large burns who have received substantial antibiotics—are the ones who develop yeast infections ^[19]. The filamentous molds carry the gravest prognosis: a systematic review of mucormycosis after burns assembled 114 patients from 46 articles and found that non-survivors had significantly larger burns than survivors (mean TBSA 65% versus 46%, p < .001) ^[20].

Pathophysiology¶

The eschar as a protected niche¶

The microbiologic behavior of the burn wound follows from its anatomy. The avascular nature of the burn wound precludes successful delivery of systemic antibacterial agents to the surface, which is the original rationale for topical antimicrobial therapy ^[3]. Organisms colonize the nonviable surface first and, in the absence of effective topical control, progress to invasion: histologic work after escharectomy showed progressively deepening colonization of nonviable tissue advancing to invasion of underlying viable tissue ^[33]. Foundational experimental burn work established that bacterial invasion of the burn wound occurs at a predictable rate and that prognosis relates to the quantitative bacterial counts recovered from the wound ^[4]. Burned hosts are intrinsically susceptible: the burn injury produces a long-lasting altered immune state, with increased leukocyte migratory potential, impaired neutrophil antibacterial activity, and enhanced inflammatory mediator production by macrophages described in a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies ^[16].

Biofilm and polymicrobial dynamics¶

Burn pathogens organize into biofilms within the wound. In a rodent co-inoculation model, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus formed robust biofilms reaching bacterial tissue loads near 1 × 10^9 CFU/g with expression of key biofilm genes ^[14], while C. albicans reached tissue loads near 1 × 10^6 CFU/g within 3 days but was largely cleared from the wound by day 7 to 11 depending on burn depth ^[14]. These biofilms are not inert colonizers: they contributed to burn-depth progression, increased release of high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB-1) into the circulation, and elevated circulating innate immune cells ^[14]. Pseudomonas infection of both deep-partial and full-thickness burns amplified local inflammation, with enhanced neutrophil and monocyte influx, increased IL-1β, IL-6, GRO/KC, and MIP-1α, and reduced IL-10 ^[15]. The species composition also matters experimentally—virulence in a burned-mouse model differs among Pseudomonas species, with P. cepacia persisting in the wound for at least 3 weeks without detectable organ invasion ^[32].

Antimicrobial Resistance¶

Resistance is common and often multidrug¶

Resistance among burn isolates is high and frequently multidrug. A meta-analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from burn patients found a combined multidrug-resistant prevalence of 79.3% (95% CI 31.1–97%) and a class 1 integron prevalence of 69% (95% CI 50.5–83%) ^[10], with a significant correlation between class 1 integrons and antibiotic resistance reported in 55.5% of included studies ^[10]. Single-center series echo the scale: one unit reported MDR P. aeruginosa in 15.2%, MDR A. baumannii in 13.8%, and MRSA in 77.4% of burn-wound infections ^[7], while a southwest-Iran study found MDR phenotype in P. aeruginosa (30.3%), Enterobacter spp. (11.1%), and E. coli (10.5%) ^[8]. Antimicrobial resistance profiles differ significantly between burned and non-burned patients in the same institution ^[12], reinforcing that the burn unit is its own microbiologic environment.

Agent-specific patterns¶

The drugs that hold up against burn Pseudomonas are a narrowing set. In a susceptibility survey, imipenem and meropenem were the most active in vitro agents, followed by ciprofloxacin, while ticarcillin/clavulanate was the least active ^[11]. Cross-resistance is extensive: almost all resistant isolates (98–100%) showed cross-resistance to cefepime, and the majority of carbapenem-resistant isolates demonstrated cross-resistance to all other tested antibiotics ^[11]. In that same cohort, extended-spectrum beta-lactamases were detected in only 4.3% of isolates and metallo-beta-lactamase in none ^[11], a reminder that resistance mechanisms—and therefore the drugs that fail—vary by setting. A pooled analysis found the highest combined resistance against cloxacillin (87.7%), carbenicillin (79.1%), and ceftriaxone (77.3%) ^[10], and gram-negative isolates in another series showed maximal resistance to imipenem, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime, and amikacin ^[8]. Resistance to ceftazidime and aminoglycosides increased significantly over time among gram-negative organisms in a unit tracking trends ^[7].

Surveillance as the operative response¶

Because the resistance picture is local and shifting, surveillance is the recurring recommendation in the literature rather than a fixed regimen. Authors describe periodic surveillance of antibiotic-resistance patterns in the burn unit as an aid to physicians selecting antibiotics ^[12], and one center proposed using a rise in antibiotic consumption as an early trigger to initiate molecular typing of P. aeruginosa strains and to reinforce standard infection-control procedures ^[6]. A long-running Swedish surveillance program illustrates how center-specific the numbers are: it found a sustained low MRSA risk but a high—though not increasing—risk of carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa over nearly two decades ^[9].

Management¶

This section addresses the microbiologic basis of antimicrobial selection and control, not a treatment protocol; systemic regimen choice belongs on [[burn-infection-sepsis]].

Topical control of the colonized wound¶

Because systemic agents cannot reach the avascular eschar, topical antimicrobials are the historical mainstay of wound microbial control. Topical therapy with effective agents significantly reduced the occurrence of invasive Pseudomonas burn-wound sepsis, though none of the agents sterilize the burn wound ^[2]. Experimental work supports the surface-control rationale: topical use of antibacterial agents reduces bacterial numbers in the wound to more manageable levels even where systemic delivery fails ^[3], and mafenide acetate produced the lowest incidence of muscle invasion and the lowest eschar and muscle bacterial concentrations in experimental burn-wound sepsis ^[36]. Mafenide can also be delivered as a medicated dry-foam dosage form: after 156 hours of therapy the previously infected areas no longer demonstrated Pseudomonas while all nonmedicated infected controls remained culture-positive, and the two medicated forms showed equivalent efficacy ^[38]. The introduction of antipseudomonal aminoglycosides and penicillins, for their part, substantially improved the prognosis of established Pseudomonas infections ^[1].

Comparative topical and adjunct agents¶

Comparative effectiveness data on topical agents are mixed and mostly anti-pseudomonal in framing. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing silver sulfadiazine with other materials found no difference in infection rate between silver sulfadiazine and silver-containing dressings, but a significantly higher infection rate with silver sulfadiazine than with dressings containing no silver ^[31]. Honey has measurable antibacterial activity against burn Pseudomonas: strains showed sensitivity with minimum inhibitory concentrations below 10% vol/vol, and bactericidal activity persisted at more than tenfold dilution ^[29]; a systematic review of randomized trials reported honey favored over silver sulfadiazine for the proportion of infected wounds rendered sterile ^[30]. Topical silver agents, notably a nanocrystalline silver-coated dressing, showed fungicidal activity against burn-wound fungal pathogens in vitro, with the nanocrystalline dressing providing the fastest and broadest-spectrum kill ^[17]. Newer silver-bearing materials extend this activity against resistant organisms: tested against multidrug-resistant burn isolates, fluoride did not exhibit antibacterial activity while both 1% and 2% silver-containing bioactive glasses inhibited bacterial growth, and the 1% silver glass showed antibacterial activity without toxicity against fibroblasts ^[37]. Diffusion-assay work comparing topical antimicrobials was developed specifically because a multiresistant P. aeruginosa clone colonized or infected 26 patients over a two-year unit outbreak ^[26].

Pharmacokinetic caveat for systemic agents¶

When systemic agents are used, burn physiology alters their handling. In a controlled comparison, burn injury produced significantly altered pharmacokinetics with higher inter-individual variability—increased distribution volume and clearance and a significantly lower area under the curve for linezolid—supporting therapeutic drug monitoring and dose individualization in severe burns ^[35].

Complications¶

Invasive infection from these organisms produces the expected downstream syndromes—bacteremia, pneumonia, and metastatic seeding. A case of severe burn complicated by methicillin-resistant S. aureus illustrates the trajectory: the patient developed MRSA septicemia on day 9, pneumonia on day 18, and ultimately multiple brain abscesses caused by MRSA ^[34]; despite aggressive antibiotics the infection was never controlled and the patient died on day 50 ^[34]. The biofilm contribution to burn-depth progression and to systemic HMGB-1 release links local wound microbiology to the systemic inflammatory burden discussed on [[post-burn-multiple-organ-dysfunction]] ^[14]. Filamentous-mold infection is the most lethal complication category, concentrated in the largest burns as the mucormycosis review demonstrates ^[20]. Not every alarming wound appearance is infection: in one report, dark pigmentation foci that developed on partial-thickness burns resembled invasive wound infection, yet cultures from the pigmented areas were negative and biopsy revealed deposits of silver rather than organisms ^[39], a reminder that silver-sulfadiazine eschar staining can mimic invasive wound infection on inspection.

Special Considerations¶

Burned children are a distinct microbiologic population. Young children with burns are at risk of developing a toxic-shock-like illness in the first 2–3 days after injury ^[21], an illness implicating the staphylococcal exotoxin TSST-1; at admission only about half of children had antibodies to TSST-1 ^{[21] [22]}, leaving a substantial proportion unprotected against the toxin. MRSA can be controlled in a pediatric unit but is not rare—one large pediatric burn center identified MRSA in 4% of admitted children over a multi-year period ^[23]. Pediatric burn bacteremia is both common and dangerous: in one children's series, bacteremia accounted for 6.4% of admissions with a mortality of 29.4% ^[24]. These population-specific risks are why pediatric burn surveillance and toxic-shock vigilance differ from adult practice.

Outcomes¶

Microbiology maps directly onto survival. In a pediatric series, the case-fatality rate was 5.9%, with septic shock and multiple organ failure the leading cause of death ^[5]. The Brazilian two-period comparison found higher mortality in 2019–2020 than the earlier window (26.2% versus 14.6%, p = .026), with sepsis the cause of death in roughly 80% of cases in both periods and P. aeruginosa the main agent identified among deaths ^[13]. Klebsiella resistance also tracks with worse host profiles: patients colonized with multidrug-resistant K. pneumoniae were older and had larger, more often full-thickness burns than non-colonized patients ^[25]. Historically, the introduction of antipseudomonal agents improved the prognosis of Pseudomonas infections ^[1], but the persistence of sepsis as the dominant terminal event underscores that microbiologic control remains incomplete.

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

The most important caveat is generalizability. Reported pathogen proportions and resistance rates vary widely between centers and eras—MRSA was a sustained low risk in one long-running Swedish program while carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa risk was high ^[9], whereas other units report MRSA in the majority of wound infections ^[7]. A Brazilian center found no change in leading pathogens or resistance across two recent periods despite rising culture positivity ^[13], cautioning against assuming uniform secular trends. The literature base is also heavily weighted toward single-center observational series and older experimental models, with relatively few multicenter or prospective resistance studies, which limits pooled estimates: even the Pseudomonas MDR meta-analysis carried an extremely wide confidence interval (31.1–97%) ^[10].

Prevention strategies beyond surveillance remain unsettled in the available evidence. Immunologic prophylaxis and treatment of Pseudomonas infections, though conceptually attractive, were described as of unverified clinical effectiveness ^[2], and the field still lacks robust evidence for the optimal balance of topical control, infection-control practice, and stewardship. The recurring theme across the strongest sources is that no published antibiogram substitutes for local, current surveillance, and that antibiotic-consumption monitoring may serve as an early outbreak signal ^{[6] [12]}—but the comparative effectiveness of these control strategies on hard outcomes is not established in this corpus.

References¶

[1] Bodey GP, Bolivar R, Fainstein V, Jadeja L. "Infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa." Rev Infect Dis 1983. PMID: 6405475. ↩

[2] Pruitt BA Jr, Lindberg RB, McManus WF, Mason AD Jr. "Current approach to prevention and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in burned patients." Rev Infect Dis 1983. PMID: 6361962. ↩

[3] Moncrief JA. "Topical therapy of the burn wound: present status." Clin Pharmacol Ther 1969. PMID: 5793751. ↩

[4] Dressler DP, Rozin RR, Skornik W, Bellas AE, Soroff HS. "An evaluation of mafenide acetate in experimental burn wound sepsis." Arch Surg 1967. PMID: 4964593. ↩

[5] Fekih Hassen A, Ben Khalifa S, Daiki M. "Epidemiological and bacteriological profiles in children with burns." Burns 2014. PMID: 24331406. ↩

[6] Fournier A, et al. "Antibiotic consumption to detect epidemics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a burn centre: A paradigm shift in the epidemiological surveillance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial infections." Burns 2016. PMID: 26708236. ↩

[7] Singh NP, Rani M, Gupta K, Sagar T, Kaur IR. "Changing trends in antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacterial isolates in a burn unit." Burns 2017. PMID: 28153582. ↩

[8] Hashemzadeh M, Heydari R, Asareh Zadegan Dezfuli A, Saki M, Meghdadi H, Bakhtiyariniya P. "Occurrence of Multiple-Drug Resistance Bacteria and Their Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in Burn Infections from Southwest of Iran." J Burn Care Res 2022. PMID: 34236077. ↩

[9] Fransén J, Huss FR, Nilsson LE, Rydell U, Sjöberg F, Hanberger H. "Surveillance of antibiotic susceptibility in a Swedish Burn Center 1994-2012." Burns 2016. PMID: 27241732. ↩

[10] Heidarzadeh S, et al. "A Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence of Class 1 Integron and Correlation with Antibiotic Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Recovered from Iranian Burn Patients." J Burn Care Res 2019. PMID: 31326983. ↩

[11] Japoni A, Alborzi A, Kalani M, Nasiri J, Hayati M, Farshad S. "Susceptibility patterns and cross-resistance of antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burn patients in the South of Iran." Burns 2006. PMID: 16527415. ↩

[12] Huang Z, et al. "Characteristics and Evolution of Microbial Drug Resistance in Burned Patients." J Burn Care Res 2024. PMID: 32147708. ↩

[13] Rissetto NG, de Oliveira JW, Nisihara R. "Main Pathogens Causing Infections and Antibiotic Resistance Profile in Major Burns in Brazil Comparing Two Periods: 2015/2016 and 2019/2020." J Burn Care Res 2024. PMID: 37596810. ↩

[14] Brandenburg KS, Weaver AJ Jr, Karna SLR, Leung KP. "The impact of simultaneous inoculation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans on rodent burn wounds." Burns 2021. PMID: 33771422. ↩

[15] Weaver AJ Jr, Brandenburg KS, Smith BW, Leung KP. "Comparative Analysis of the Host Response in a Rat Model of Deep-Partial and Full-Thickness Burn Wounds With Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection." Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2019. PMID: 31998665. ↩

[16] Mulder PPG, Koenen HJPM, Vlig M, Joosten I, de Vries RBM, Boekema BKHL. "Burn-Induced Local and Systemic Immune Response: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies." J Invest Dermatol 2022. PMID: 35623415. ↩

[17] Wright JB, Lam K, Hansen D, Burrell RE. "Efficacy of topical silver against fungal burn wound pathogens." Am J Infect Control 1999. PMID: 10433674. ↩

[18] Mousa HA. "Fungal infection of burn wounds in patients with open and occlusive treatment methods." East Mediterr Health J 1999. PMID: 10793810. ↩

[19] Still JM Jr, Law EJ, Belcher KE, Spencer SA. "A comparison of susceptibility to five antifungal agents of yeast cultures from burn patients." Burns 1995. PMID: 7794495. ↩

[20] Dang J, et al. "Mucormycosis following burn injuries: A systematic review." Burns 2023. PMID: 35842270. ↩

[21] Childs C, Edwards Jones V, Dawson M, Davenport PJ. "Toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (TSST-1) antibody levels in burned children." Burns 1999. PMID: 10498353. ↩

[22] Childs C, Edwards-Jones V, Heathcote DM, Dawson M, Davenport PJ. "Patterns of Staphylococcus aureus colonization, toxin production, immunity and illness in burned children." Burns 1994. PMID: 7880416. ↩

[23] Sheridan RL, Weber J, Benjamin J, Pasternack MS, Tompkins RG. "Control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a pediatric burn unit." Am J Infect Control 1994. PMID: 7695112. ↩

[24] Zhang H, Gao Z. "[Burn bacteremia in children]." Zhonghua Zheng Xing Shao Shang Wai Ke Za Zhi 1996. PMID: 9387469. ↩

[25] Sánchez M, et al. "Risk factors for outbreaks of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in critical burn patients." J Burn Care Res 2012. PMID: 21979841. ↩

[26] Aujoulat F, et al. "Comparative diffusion assay to assess efficacy of topical antimicrobial agents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in burns care." Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2011. PMID: 21702921. ↩

[27] Ransjö U. "Attempts to control clothes-borne infection in a burn unit, 2. Clothing routines in clinical use and the epidemiology of cross-colonization." J Hyg (Lond) 1979. PMID: 109498. ↩

[28] Silla RC, Fong J, Wright J, Wood F. "Infection in acute burn wounds following the Bali bombings: a comparative prospective audit." Burns 2006. PMID: 16448769. ↩

[29] Cooper RA, Halas E, Molan PC. "The efficacy of honey in inhibiting strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from infected burns." J Burn Care Rehabil 2002. PMID: 12432313. ↩

[30] Aziz Z, Abdul Rasool Hassan B. "The effects of honey compared to silver sulfadiazine for the treatment of burns: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials." Burns 2017. PMID: 27576926. ↩

[31] Nímia HH, Carvalho VF, Isaac C, Souza FÁ, Gemperli R, Paggiaro AO. "Comparative study of Silver Sulfadiazine with other materials for healing and infection prevention in burns: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Burns 2019. PMID: 29903603. ↩

[32] Stover GB, Drake DR, Montie TC. "Virulence of different Pseudomonas species in a burned mouse model: tissue colonization by Pseudomonas cepacia." Infect Immun 1983. PMID: 6885156. ↩

[33] Chu CS, McManus AT, Mason AD, Pruitt BA Jr. "Topical silver treatment after escharectomy of infected full thickness burn wounds in rats." J Trauma 2005. PMID: 15920422. ↩

[34] Suzuki T, Ueki I, Isago T, Nozaki M, Hirayama T, Kawanami O. "Multiple brain abscesses complicating treatment of a severe burn injury: an unusual case report." J Burn Care Rehabil 1992. PMID: 1429817. ↩

[35] Ma JL, et al. "Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of linezolid in burn and non-burn rabbits." Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2015. PMID: 24924311. ↩

[36] Snelling CF, Roberts FJ, Germann E, Gillespie K, Coderre S, Henry D. "Comparison of standard and chlorhexidine-derivative topical antibacterial agents on the infected burned rat wound." Burns Incl Therm Inj 1988. PMID: 3134114. ↩

[37] Gholipourmalekabadi M, Sameni M, Hashemi A, Zamani F, Rostami A, Mozafari M. "Silver- and fluoride-containing mesoporous bioactive glasses versus commonly used antibiotics: Activity against multidrug-resistant bacterial strains isolated from patients with burns." Burns 2016. PMID: 26603913. ↩

[38] Catania PN, King JC. "Inhibition of Pseudomonas burn wound infection by mafenide dry foam." J Pharm Sci 1975. PMID: 805232. ↩

[39] Eldad A, et al. "Silver-sulfadiazine eschar pigmentation mimics invasive wound infection: a case report." J Burn Care Rehabil 2003. PMID: 12792235. ↩