Electrical burn injury mechanisms and biophysics (low- vs high-voltage)

Overview¶

Electric shock causes injury and death through a variety of mechanisms ^[13], and virtually every part of the body can be injured by electric current ^[8]. What separates electrical injury from thermal burns is that the damage is distributed along the path the current takes through the body, so extensive local destruction concentrates at the points of entrance and exit ^[2] while the deeper tissue burden is often invisible on the surface. Electrical injury is best understood as a relatively infrequent but potentially devastating form of multisystem injury with high morbidity and mortality ^[12], not as a variant of flame burn.

Electric burns represent a small, although severe, fraction of all accidental burns ^[16]. Their disproportionate weight comes from the depth and breadth of internal damage: electrical injuries are often dramatic accidents and are potentially fatal ^[15], and while many victims of electrocution are killed before help can be provided, survivors may suffer severe injuries that need proper treatment ^[15]. The recurring clinical lesson is that the surface thermal burn associated with high-voltage injury represents only the tip of the iceberg ^[33].

This entry treats electrical injury as a disease entity defined by its biophysics. Three ideas organize what follows: the conversion of electric energy to tissue damage through heating and, at high voltage, through direct membrane and protein effects ^[3]; the division of injury into low-voltage and high-voltage categories that behave differently ^[11]; and the principle that severity is governed by current intensity, pathway, and contact duration rather than by voltage alone ^[12]. Lightning is the natural extreme of this spectrum and carries the highest mortality ^[12]; it is treated only in contrast here and belongs to its own entry.

Epidemiology¶

Electrical injury is uncommon relative to scald and flame burn but consistently severe. Across the corpus it is described as a small fraction of accidental burns ^[16] and as an infrequent but potentially devastating multisystem injury ^[12]. The voltage split varies by series and setting. In a pediatric cohort, high-voltage electricity accounted for 63% of injuries and low-voltage current for 37% ^[20], whereas a forensic series of 126 electrocution-related deaths found the reverse distribution, with 91 low-voltage and 35 high-voltage deaths ^[21]. The reconciling point is that high-voltage contact produces the more destructive limb injuries while low-voltage contact, being far more common in domestic settings, still accounts for a large share of fatal arrhythmic events.

Setting and host shape the epidemiology. Low-voltage injuries usually occur in the home, where tetany may lead to sustained contact and dangerous cardiac disturbances often result ^[18]. Occupational exposure dominates the high-voltage picture, and in a survey of male electricians, high-voltage injuries and the "no-let-go" phenomenon were associated with more sustained symptoms ^[49]. Both forms may be fatal ^[18]. Death has occurred with injury involving voltage as low as 50 to 60 V, probably the result of arrhythmias ^[23], which underscores that lethality is not confined to the high-voltage end of the spectrum.

Children are a distinct epidemiologic population. Electrical injuries in children continue to account for substantial morbidity and mortality ^[48], and oral electrical burns occur predominantly in young children ^[45]. The agents differ from adult exposures: in one infant series, all 14 victims were less than 24 months of age and two died by electrocution ^[46], and the most common mechanism was misapplication or improper connection of electrode lead wires in 57% of cases ^[46]. The consistent epidemiologic signal is that electrical injury is largely a disease of two settings, the home and the workplace, with children and occupational electricians as the principal at-risk groups.

Pathophysiology¶

The single most important concept in electrical injury is that electric energy becomes tissue damage. The tissue damage associated with an electric injury occurs when electric energy is converted to thermal energy, or heat ^[1], and tissue temperature is the critical factor in determining the magnitude of tissue injury before the current arcs ^[1]. This conversion, the Joule heating that follows from current passing through a resistive conductor, was historically thought to be the only cause of tissue injury in commercial-frequency electrical shocks ^[3]. Joule's equivalent explains the heat exchange, often in thousands of degrees centigrade, with many variables to consider, though in practice it is usually the voltage that can be determined and that is probably the most important single factor ^[2].

Resistance is the property that turns current into heat, and tissue resistance is not uniform. Different tissues have different resistance to the conduction of electricity ^[10]. The classic experimental work complicated the intuitive picture: with the exception of skin resistance, the resistances of individual tissues seem not relevant to the amount of tissue damage ^[1], because living tissue acts as a volume conductor, and once skin resistance has been overcome all internal tissue resistance, with the exception of bone, is negligible to current flow ^[1]. In that model the volume of tissue traversed by the current was more closely related to the extent of injury than the internal resistance of the individual tissues ^[1]. Bone is the exception that reorganizes the wound: deep-tissue loss is secondary to the extremely high temperatures generated by the resistance of skin and bone to the passage of current ^[2], which is why periosseous muscle is so often the most severely burned layer.

Above the thermal mechanism sits a second tier of injury that becomes prominent at high voltage. Besides thermal burns secondary to Joule heating, permeabilization of cell membranes and direct electroconformational denaturation of macromolecules such as proteins have been identified as tissue-damage mechanisms ^[3]. The primary mechanisms of high-voltage electrical injury involve electroporation, electroconformational protein denaturation, and Joule heating ^[3]. Electroporation, the loss of cell-membrane structural integrity through the formation of pores, was proposed as a substantial cause of tissue necrosis in victims of electrical trauma ^[5], and the central importance of cell-membrane permeabilization in acute cellular necrosis is the biophysical feature that different burn mechanisms share ^[6]. These non-thermal pathways matter clinically because they can damage cells whose temperature never reached the threshold for thermal coagulation, and the same membrane-pore mechanism may best explain immediate or progressive changes in nerve structure and function after electrical injury ^[7].

Current pathway is the third organizing variable, and it is governed by tissue conductivity. Nervous tissue has the least resistance to current flow and is thus more easily damaged ^[8]; the high rate of neurological sequelae is accounted for by the fact that nerves are the lowest-resistance tissue in the body and electricity tends to follow the path of least resistance ^[9]. The clinical corollary is that injury can appear remote from the apparent contact points and can produce physical, neurological, and neuropsychological sequelae even in the total absence of a theoretical current path that includes the brain ^[55]. The factors that together set the final injury are well enumerated: voltage, current (amperage), type of current (alternating or direct), path of current flow across the body, duration of contact, and individual susceptibility ^[10]. A complementary list specifies seven determinants, adding area of contact and resistance of the body to the same core variables ^[11].

Two further mechanisms complete the biophysical picture. The first is the self-limiting nature of the contact arc: an electric burn is self-limiting in the sense that once the current arcs, no further skin and muscle damage is possible because amperage falls to zero ^[1]. The second is mechanical, mediated by muscle. Massive muscle contractions, from nerve stimulation or direct triggering of striated muscle, can cause ruptures, ligamentous tears, fractures, and joint dislocations, and prolonged current passing through the thoracic wall may produce tetany of the intercostal muscles and diaphragm resulting in asphyxia ^[14]. Tetanic contraction is also asymmetric, producing imbalance between flexor and extensor groups, with the flexor groups being stronger ^[10], the basis of the characteristic flexed-hand grip that prolongs contact in low-voltage household injury.

Classification¶

Electrical injury is classified first by voltage. Electrical accidents are divided into less than 1000 V (low-voltage) and greater than 1000 V (high-voltage) ^[11], a distinction that carries clinical weight because high tension and low tension, along with direct and indirect currents, all exert differing effects ^[2]. One operational definition places low-voltage current from 60 to 1000 V, usually 220 or 360 V, with high-voltage current above 1000 V, and treats lightning and the voltaic arc as separate categories ^[19]. The voltage label is predictive of pattern: low-voltage electric burns almost exclusively involve either the hands or the oral cavity ^[11], whereas high-voltage contact produces the extensive deep injury that defines limb-threatening trauma.

A second axis classifies by the physical mechanism of energy transfer. The electrical current can injure via three mechanisms: injury caused by current flow through the body, an arc injury as the current passes from source to an object, and a flame injury caused by ignition of material in the local environment ^[10]. Burns from contact with a high-voltage alternating circuit conform to two of these types, burns from an electric arc and burns from an electric current ^[11], and arc burns can occur without the patient contacting the source yet still be quite destructive ^[2]. A practical clinical grouping divides electrical burns into flash or typical thermal injury and high-tension injury, where the latter is usually caused by more than 1000 V and produces a clinically characteristic entry and exit wound ^[17].

A third class sits outside the voltage dichotomy. Diffuse electrical injury is a rarely occurring class that can follow even low-voltage contact ^[55], a reminder that the neurological and systemic burden does not always map onto the magnitude of the local burn.

Assessment¶

The cardinal assessment problem in electrical injury is that the surface understates the depth. Because the visible thermal burn is only the tip of the iceberg in high-voltage injury ^[33], depth assessment cannot rely on inspection of the skin alone. True electrical injury presents with dry, dark brown necrotic wounds, the electric current spots, at the entrance and exit sites, with necrosis developing in the surrounding tissues ^[30]. The internal pattern can include muscle necrosis, hemolysis, vascular damage with thrombosis, injury to brain and spinal cord, and skeletal fractures, in addition to the external current marks ^{[4][8][40][51][56]}.

Several adjuncts attempt to map deep tissue viability that the eye cannot see. Tissue impedance has been studied as a marker of necrosis: in burned limbs a 70% reduction in muscle impedance corresponded to decreased metabolic activity and suggested necrosis, while visually viable tissue showed only a 25% decrease ^[52], leading to the proposal that impedance measurement may be a valuable adjunct because significant changes strongly suggest nonviability ^[52]. Radionuclide imaging has a parallel role; in high-voltage injury, early technetium scanning demonstrated a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 100% ^[33]. Angiographic findings reflect the vascular dimension, with digital subtraction angiography demonstrating segmental narrowing and "pruning" of large vascular trunks and a significant decrease in nutrient vessels in affected areas ^[36].

Cardiac assessment is driven by risk stratification rather than by the burn itself. The pathway of electricity through the body, mapped as a line between entrance and exit wounds, is informative: a vertical pathway and the magnitude of percent surface burn were the most significant clinical predictors of myocardial damage in high-voltage injury ^[27]. At the low-voltage end the assessment yield is low; in a series of 141 patients presenting with 120-V injuries, cardiac monitoring of 113 patients over a mean of roughly 7 hours detected no arrhythmias attributable to the injury ^[23].

Management¶

Electrical injury is managed differently from thermal burns, a point made repeatedly across the literature. Treatment of electrical injuries differs from treatment of burns ^[28], and because of basic differences in pathophysiology, patients with electrical injury require therapeutic measures quite separate and distinct from patients with flame burns ^[29]. The principal divergence is fluid resuscitation. Fluid requirements are much greater for the electrically injured patient because of the depth of injury and the frequent occurrence of pigment in the urine ^[29], and damage to muscle and subcutaneous structures necessitates a more aggressive fluid-replacement regimen than the commonly used burn formulas predict ^[28].

Pigment management is the second pillar and follows directly from muscle necrosis. Myoglobin released into the circulation from necrotic muscle causes myoglobinuria and increases the risk of acute renal failure ^[30]; one review advised administering more fluid than in ordinary burns to accelerate urinary excretion of myoglobin ^[30]. Where myoglobin is detected in the urine, described management is aggressive volume resuscitation and, in some accounts, alkalinization of the urine or mannitol given to minimize pigment precipitation in the renal tubules ^[10]. Severe electrical injury is often associated with acute rhabdomyolysis, evident from massively elevated creatine kinase along with hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and myoglobinuria ^[31], and acute care must include supportive therapy for the rhabdomyolysis ^[31].

Surgical management addresses the deep tissue burden that imaging and examination uncover. Fasciotomy with surgical exploration to determine tissue viability is usually required in areas of obvious or questionable viability ^[29], and early fasciotomy with repeated surgical debridement is often necessary ^[28]. Definitive coverage frequently exceeds the scope of skin grafting; after debridement, split-thickness grafting is feasible in only a few cases and microvascular free flaps are mostly used to cover the resulting defects ^[53]. Early debridement and coverage with a vascularized free muscle flap, when local flaps are unsuitable, has been used to protect partially devitalized structures and preserve function ^[34]. A series reporting conservative surgical debridement of necrotic tissue described limb salvage and preservation of function in many patients ^[29].

Cardiac monitoring is targeted rather than universal. Routine arrhythmia monitoring is considered unnecessary in individuals exposed to low-tension alternating current unless arrhythmias requiring treatment are present at first medical contact ^[28]. A prospective multicenter approach concluded that asymptomatic patients with transthoracic current and/or tetany and a normal initial ECG do not require cardiac monitoring after an electrical injury with voltage below 1000 V and no loss of consciousness ^[26].

Complications¶

The complications of electrical injury cluster in three domains: the limb, the heart, and the nervous system. The limb burden is the most visible. Electrical injuries inflict severe deep-tissue destruction that frequently results in major limb amputation ^[41], and high-voltage injury in particular results in progressive deep tissue necrosis after debridement, often ending in amputation when an extremity is involved ^[34]. Amputations, peripheral neuropathy, and entrapment syndromes occur more commonly in electricity-induced trauma than in thermal burns ^[42]. The quantitative picture is sobering: in a high-voltage hand-injury series, 30% of explored limbs were subsequently amputated ^[22], and of the remaining extremities only 42% had normal function while 58% had diminished or greatly diminished function ^[22]. Amputation risk is influenced by voltage, muscle injury, and current pathway, while skin-grafting risk is driven mainly by voltage ^[54].

Cardiac complications are the most immediately lethal. In cases where victims become pulseless and die suddenly, the underlying event has assuredly been ventricular fibrillation ^[24]. Cardiovascular complications in the electrically injured patient can be devastating ^[50], and high-voltage injuries may present with extensive burns, cardiac arrest, amputations, and long, complicated hospitalizations ^[43]. The strongest predictors of myocardial damage are a vertical current pathway and a larger percent surface burn ^[27].

Vascular and neurological sequelae extend the injury in time and space. Electric injury causes serious vascular damage that is evident early and progresses slowly over the first 48 hours ^[39], and a disturbed balance between the clotting and fibrinolytic systems after electric injury may explain the clinical observation of progressive thrombosis of blood vessels leading to tissue loss ^[40]. Ocular complications, although uncommon overall ^[44], include cataracts, recurrent iritis, macular holes, and central retinal artery occlusion ^[44], and many of the visually impairing changes develop days to years after a severe injury ^[44]. Long-term sequelae of electrocution include neurological injury attributed to the electroporation phenomenon ^[9], and diffuse electrical injury can produce neuropsychological sequelae without any current path through the brain ^[55].

Special Considerations¶

Electrical injury maps onto distinct populations, and the population shapes both the mechanism and the prognosis. Children are injured by household exposures rather than occupational ones. Electrical injuries in children continue to account for substantial morbidity and mortality ^[48], and oral electrical burns occur predominantly in young children and may lead to permanent disfigurement ^[45], the classic injury from mouthing a live cord or socket. In infants, iatrogenic monitoring devices are a recognized source: all 14 victims in one series were under 24 months of age, two died by electrocution ^[46], and the leading mechanism was misapplication or improper connection of electrode lead wires in 57% of cases ^[46].

Occupational electricians are the adult counterpart, exposed to high-voltage contact and to the "no-let-go" phenomenon, both of which were associated with more sustained symptoms ^[49]. The same survey singled out high-voltage injuries and no-let-go accidents as warranting special attention ^[49], reflecting their heavier symptom burden.

Pregnancy is a population with a reassuring evidence signal. In most cases, accidental electric shock occurring during day-to-day life during pregnancy does not pose a major fetal risk ^[47]. This contrasts with high-voltage occupational injury and tempers the historical assumption that any maternal electric shock threatens the fetus.

Outcomes¶

Outcome in electrical injury is governed less by the voltage label alone than by current intensity, pathway, and contact duration ^[12], and by the depth of muscle injury those factors produce. The severity of injury depends on the intensity of the current, determined by the voltage of the source and the resistance of the victim, the pathway through the body, and the duration of contact ^[12]. High-voltage contact carries the worst limb prognosis, with 30% of explored limbs amputated and a majority of salvaged limbs left with diminished function ^[22], and the primary driver of late extremity loss is progressive tissue necrosis that extends in the wound and can claim the whole injured extremity ^[35].

The contrast with lightning is instructive. In lightning injury, cardiac arrest is the main cause of death and the burns themselves tend to be superficial ^[43], the inverse of the deep contact necrosis that defines high-voltage industrial injury. Among power-frequency injuries, the low-voltage end is generally less destructive locally but still capable of sudden death from arrhythmia ^[24], while the high-voltage end produces the multisystem devastation, cardiac arrest, extensive burns, amputations, and prolonged hospitalization, that defines the severe phenotype ^[43].

Late outcomes extend well beyond discharge. Long-term sequelae include neuropathy and entrapment syndromes ^[42], delayed ocular changes appearing days to years later ^[44], and neuropsychological symptoms that can occur even without a brain-inclusive current path ^[55]. Modern epidemiologic analysis confirms that amputation risk is patterned by voltage, muscle injury, and current pathway, and skin-grafting need by voltage ^[54], reinforcing that the biophysical determinants of the acute injury also shape the long-term result.

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

The central unresolved question in electrical injury is whether high-voltage tissue necrosis is genuinely progressive after adequate debridement. The clinical literature describes progressive necrosis developing in tissues surrounding the current spots ^[30] and continuous extension of necrosis leading to loss of the whole extremity ^[35], and proposes a vascular basis in the form of progressive thrombosis of blood vessels after electric injury ^[40]. Yet experimental and other clinical reports point the other way: one model found that muscle injury occurred at the time of the initial thermal insult and that progressive or de novo muscle necrosis was not seen ^[1], a high-tension series found no evidence of delayed or progressive tissue necrosis ^[37], and a chronic-wound study found no experimental evidence for progressive necrosis ^[36]. The disagreement is unresolved and bears directly on the timing of debridement and reconstruction.

The mechanism of fatal arrhythmia is a second contested area. The longstanding teaching that only low-frequency alternating current induces ventricular fibrillation has been challenged, since a single pulse of current, as well as high-frequency current, can induce fibrillation ^[24]. Related is the textbook concept, often taught in medical school, that direct current causes asystole instead of ventricular fibrillation ^[25], a simplification the corpus flags as unreliable. The longer-term cardiac picture is openly uncertain: the risk of developing chronic cardiac disease after electrical injury to the heart is unknown ^[50].

Several gaps are structural. The mechanisms and patterns of high-voltage electric current injury to living tissues are not fully understood ^[38], and most available data derive from animal experimentation using voltages considerably lower than those encountered by human victims ^[38], a translational gap that weakens inference about real high-voltage exposures. The deepest methodological constraint is ethical: it is unethical to randomly study electrical injury in controlled clinical trials ^[32], which is why so much of the evidence base rests on case series, registries, and animal models rather than randomized data. The honest summary is that the biophysical conversion of current to heat and the membrane-level mechanisms at high voltage are well characterized, while the natural history of necrosis and the long-term cardiac and neurological course remain thinly evidenced.

References¶

[1] Hunt JL, Mason AD, Masterson TS, Pruitt BA. "The pathophysiology of acute electric injuries." The Journal of trauma 1976. PMID: 1271494 ↩

[2] Bingham H. "Electrical burns." Clinics in plastic surgery 1986. PMID: 3956083 ↩

[3] Lee RC, Zhang D, Hannig J. "Biophysical injury mechanisms in electrical shock trauma." Annual review of biomedical engineering 2000. PMID: 11701521 ↩

[4] Diamond TH, Twomey A, Myburgh DP. "High-voltage electrical injury. A case report and review of the literature." South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde 1982. PMID: 7036380 ↩

[5] Lee RC, Hannig J, Matthews KL, Myerov A, Chen CT. "Pharmaceutical therapies for sealing of permeabilized cell membranes in electrical injuries." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1999. PMID: 10842638 ↩

[6] Lee RC, Astumian RD. "The physicochemical basis for thermal and non-thermal 'burn' injuries." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1996. PMID: 8909750 ↩

[7] Reisner AD. "Possible mechanisms for delayed neurological damage in lightning and electrical injury." Brain injury 2013. PMID: 23473007 ↩

[8] Fish R. "Electric shock, Part II: Nature and mechanisms of injury." The Journal of emergency medicine 1993. PMID: 8228110 ↩

[9] Pérez-Molina I, Velázquez-Pérez JM, Mondéjar-Marín B, Navarro-Muñoz S, Pedrosa-Guerrero A, Alvarez-Tejerina A. "[Neurological sequelae following electrocution. A case report and review of the literature]." Revista de neurologia 2006. PMID: 17099853 ↩

[10] Sanford A, Gamelli RL. "Lightning and thermal injuries." Handbook of clinical neurology 2014. PMID: 24365365 ↩

[11] Edlich RF, Farinholt HM, Winters KL, Britt LD, Long WB. "Modern concepts of treatment and prevention of electrical burns." Journal of long-term effects of medical implants 2005. PMID: 16218900 ↩

[12] Koumbourlis AC. "Electrical injuries." Critical care medicine 2002. PMID: 12528784 ↩

[13] Fish R. "Electric shock, Part I: Physics and pathophysiology." The Journal of emergency medicine 1993. PMID: 8340587 ↩

[14] ten Duis HJ. "Acute electrical burns." Seminars in neurology 1995. PMID: 8848657 ↩

[15] Leibovici D, Shemer J, Shapira SC. "Electrical injuries: current concepts." Injury 1995. PMID: 8550171 ↩

[16] Meza-Ortiz F, Rojas-Solís MB, Noriega-Zapata PA. "[Electric burns in children. Report of 3 cases related with flying kites. Review of the literature]." Gaceta medica de Mexico 2000. PMID: 10992639 ↩

[17] Luce EA. "Electrical burns." Clinics in plastic surgery 2000. PMID: 10665362 ↩

[18] Martinez JA, Nguyen T. "Electrical injuries." Southern medical journal 2000. PMID: 11142450 ↩

[19] Adukauskiene D, Vizgirdaite V, Mazeikiene S. "[Electrical injuries]." Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 2007. PMID: 17413256 ↩

[20] Celik A, Ergün O, Ozok G. "Pediatric electrical injuries: a review of 38 consecutive patients." Journal of pediatric surgery 2004. PMID: 15300534 ↩

[21] Blumenthal R. "A retrospective descriptive study of electrocution deaths in Gauteng, South Africa: 2001-2004." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2009. PMID: 19442447 ↩

[22] Moran KT, Kotowski MP, Munster AM. "Long-term disability following high-voltage electric hand injuries." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1986. PMID: 3429485 ↩

[23] Bailey B, Gaudreault P, Thivierge RL, Turgeon JP. "Cardiac monitoring of children with household electrical injuries." Annals of emergency medicine 1995. PMID: 7741337 ↩

[24] Geddes LA, Bourland JD, Ford G. "The mechanism underlying sudden death from electric shock." Medical instrumentation 1986. PMID: 3543629 ↩

[25] Kroll MW, Fish RM, Lakkireddy D, Luceri RM, Panescu D. "Essentials of low-power electrocution: established and speculated mechanisms." Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference 2012. PMID: 23367232 ↩

[26] Bailey B, Gaudreault P, Thivierge RL. "Cardiac monitoring of high-risk patients after an electrical injury: a prospective multicentre study." Emergency medicine journal : EMJ 2007. PMID: 17452703 ↩

[27] Chandra NC, Siu CO, Munster AM. "Clinical predictors of myocardial damage after high voltage electrical injury." Critical care medicine 1990. PMID: 2302956 ↩

[28] Lippestad C, Erikssen J, Vaagenes P, Høivik B. "[Electric injuries. Physiopathology and principles of treatment]." Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke 1990. PMID: 2181732 ↩

[29] Rouse RG, Dimick AR. "The treatment of electrical injury compared to burn injury: a review of pathophysiology and comparison of patient management protocols." The Journal of trauma 1978. PMID: 340708 ↩

[30] Fujii T. "[Electrical injury]." Nihon Geka Gakkai zasshi 1998. PMID: 9547748 ↩

[31] Brumback RA, Feeback DL, Leech RW. "Rhabdomyolysis following electrical injury." Seminars in neurology 1995. PMID: 8848649 ↩

[32] Wesner ML, Hickie J. "Long-term sequelae of electrical injury." Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 2013. PMID: 24029506 ↩

[33] Hammond J, Ward CG. "The use of Technetium-99 pyrophosphate scanning in management of high voltage electrical injuries." The American surgeon 1994. PMID: 7978687 ↩

[34] Hagan KF, Buncke HJ, Gonzalez R. "Free latissimus dorsi muscle flap coverage of an electrical burn of the lower extremity." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1982. PMID: 7053501 ↩

[35] Zhu ZX et al. "Experience of 14 years of emergency reconstruction of electrical injuries." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2003. PMID: 12543048 ↩

[36] Zelt RG, Daniel RK, Ballard PA, Brissette Y, Heroux P. "High-voltage electrical injury: chronic wound evolution." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1988. PMID: 3200939 ↩

[37] Luce EA, Gottlieb SE. "'True' high-tension electrical injuries." Annals of plastic surgery 1984. PMID: 6721393 ↩

[38] DeBono R. "A histological analysis of a high voltage electric current injury to an upper limb." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1999. PMID: 10498366 ↩

[39] Lazarus HM, Hutto W. "Electric burns and frostbite: patterns of vascular injury." The Journal of trauma 1982. PMID: 7097817 ↩

[40] Ulrich D, Pallua N, Lichtenegger F, Hafemann B, Silny J. "Influence of low frequency electric fields on anti- and pro-coagulability of the vascular endothelium: new insights into high-voltage electrical injury." Thrombosis and haemostasis 2004. PMID: 15116262 ↩

[41] Yakuboff KP, Kurtzman LC, Stern PJ. "Acute management of thermal and electrical burns of the upper extremity." The Orthopedic clinics of North America 1992. PMID: 1729664 ↩

[42] Rosenberg DB, Nelson M. "Rehabilitation concerns in electrical burn patients: a review of the literature." The Journal of trauma 1988. PMID: 3290506 ↩

[43] Cooper MA. "Emergent care of lightning and electrical injuries." Seminars in neurology 1995. PMID: 8570929 ↩

[44] Boozalis GT, Purdue GF, Hunt JL, McCulley JP. "Ocular changes from electrical burn injuries. A literature review and report of cases." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1991. PMID: 1752881 ↩

[45] Linebaugh ML, Koka S. "Oral electrical burns: etiology, histopathology, and prosthodontic treatment." Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists 1993. PMID: 8242168 ↩

[46] Baker GL, Mani MM. "Infant monitoring resulting in burns-tissue damage: literature review and case report." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1993. PMID: 8454657 ↩

[47] Einarson A, Bailey B, Inocencion G, Ormond K, Koren G. "Accidental electric shock in pregnancy: a prospective cohort study." American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1997. PMID: 9077628 ↩

[48] Thompson JC, Ashwal S. "Electrical injuries in children." American journal of diseases of children (1960) 1983. PMID: 6337471 ↩

[49] Rådman L, Nilsagård Y, Jakobsson K, Ek Å, Gunnarsson LG. "Electrical injury in relation to voltage, 'no-let-go' phenomenon, symptoms and perceived safety culture: a survey of Swedish male electricians." International archives of occupational and environmental health 2016. PMID: 26186954 ↩

[50] Carleton SC. "Cardiac problems associated with electrical injury." Cardiology clinics 1995. PMID: 7614516 ↩

[51] Mondello C, Micali A, Cardia L, Argo A, Zerbo S, Spagnolo EV. "Forensic tools for the diagnosis of electrocution death: Case study and literature review." The Medico-legal journal 2018. PMID: 29303408 ↩

[52] Chilbert M et al. "Determination of tissue viability in experimental electrical injuries." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1990. PMID: 2286605 ↩

[53] Büttemeyer R, Bruck JC, Plogmeier K. "[Skin replacement after electric burns]." Langenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie. Supplement. Kongressband. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie. Kongress 1991. PMID: 1793973 ↩

[54] Zhao H et al. "Epidemiology and Prognostic Factors Analysis of Electrical Injuries in Shaanxi, China: A Single-Center Observational Study of 385 Cases." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2025. PMID: 38874587 ↩

[55] Morse JS, Morse MS. "Diffuse electrical injury: comparison of physical and neuropsychological symptom presentation in males and females." Journal of psychosomatic research 2005. PMID: 15771870 ↩

[56] Patel A, Lo R. "Electric injury with cerebral venous thrombosis. Case report and review of the literature." Stroke 1993. PMID: 8506564 ↩