Abstract
Progress in the care of severely burned patients has been achieved over the past decade and led to significantly decreased morbidity and mortality. The authors discuss burn wound care, skin substitutes, temporary skin substitutes and their clinical use, advantages, limitations and prospects, biological tissues, dermal replacements/analogues, mesh, acellular dermal matrix, and biosynthetic materials. Given the huge number of different skin substitutes available, the selection of product to use for a certain patient is always an individual decision based on the experience and personal preference of the surgeon. For full-thickness burns, the authors use either allograft or xenograft until enough donor sites are available.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Progress in the care of severely burned patients has been achieved over the past decade and led to significantly decreased morbidity and mortality [1]. Mortality decrease could be seen especially in the severely burned children population [2]. The main fields of improvement in burn care have been (1) fluid resuscitation and early patient management, (2) control of infection, (3) modulation of the hypermetabolic response, and (4) surgery and wound care [3].
2 Burn Wound Care
Extensive burn injuries are characterized by a local and systemic inflammatory as well as by a hypermetabolic response. Inflammatory mediators, produced and released by infiltrating immune cells, and toxins of wound-colonizing microorganisms would lead to burn sepsis if burn eschar is not removed. Early excision and early wound coverage are generally accepted as standard of care since the early 1970s [4]. Debridement of the burn wound and eschar should be done as soon as possible after the patient has been resuscitated and stabilized. That would be usually within the first 48–72 h post-burn. It has been shown that early excision significantly reduces blood loss, amount of circulating endotoxin levels, hypermetabolic response, wound infection, overall hospital stay, and ultimately post-burn morbidity and mortality [5,6,7,8].
As an effective alternative to surgical and nonsurgical standard of care in partial- and full-thickness burns, Debriding Gel Dressing (DGD) (NexoBrid®, formerly also known as Debrase®), a bromelain-based enzymatic agent, can be used safely and is nowadays widely used in burn centers [9, 10].
For partial-thickness burn wounds, silver sulfadiazine (SSD) has been the standard of care for many years. In the last three to four decades, a huge variety of new dressing came onto the market [11]. Nowadays, they are standard of care due to the below-mentioned superiority compared over SSD. In partial-thickness burn wounds, the wound coverage should provide an occlusive, moist environment conducive to wound healing and preventive to infection. The ultimate goal is to decrease treatment time, pain, and discomfort.
3 Skin Substitutes
Skin is a highly complex organ. The two highly specialized layers of the skin contribute to their function as a whole as follows: The epidermis serves as a barrier against vaporization and bacteria. The dermis provides mechanical strength and elasticity. Loss of that barrier function leads to a loss of fluid and protein. The loss of the epidermis makes the tissue prone for inflammation, bacterial colonization, infection, and sepsis. Prolonged wound healing leads to higher rates of scarring [12].
Despite the known benefits of early autografting [4], in many cases it is not safe, as in unstable patients or if not enough donor sites are available due to extensive burns, or simply not possible, as on the battlefield, in mass casualties, or due to limited operating room resources. In these circumstances the burn surgeon needs to resort to alternatives, either for temporary covering or as a definitive dermal replacement.
The ideal skin substitute is constantly available off the shelf; is durable, flexible, and easy to handle; can be applied in one single operation; provides an effective barrier layer to prevent water and heat loss as well as to bacterial invasion; does not become hypertrophic; is nonantigenic; grows with children; is cost efficient; and provides permanent wound coverage but unfortunately to date also does not exist [12].
Generally, skin substitutes can be classified based on their usage (temporary vs. permanent) and on their origin (biologic vs. synthetic). Many of them can be applied in the treatment of partial-thickness as well as full-thickness burns.
In this chapter, we elucidate a selection of currently available skin substitutes for temporary and (semi-) permanent coverage. We describe the origin of the material (biologic, synthetic, combination) and indications of its application (either for partial-thickness or for full-thickness burn wounds). Furthermore, we outline the current study situation and illustrate product-related characteristics and limitations.
3.1 Temporary Skin Substitutes: Clinical Use, Advantages, Limitations, Prospects
3.1.1 Biological Tissues
3.1.1.1 Human Allograft (Cadaver Skin)
Fresh allograft skin possesses many of the ideal features of a biologic dressing, wherefore it is the “gold standard” for temporary coverage of extensive full-thickness burn wounds when not enough autologous tissue is available. It basically replaces the lost physiologic barrier and reduces water, electrolyte, and protein loss; prevents wound desiccation; suppresses microbial proliferation; is non-immunogenic; and prepares the wound bed for definitive wound coverage and can serve as an indicator as to if the wound bed is ready for autografting. This can be crucial, as in large burns successful autografting can be essential for survival [13]. It also reduces pain, which makes occupational and physiotherapy easier for the patient.
Human allograft skin can be used as viable tissue up to 14 days when kept refrigerated at 4 °C and the nutrient solution is changed frequently [14]. Cryopreserved skin can be used up to 5 years [15]. It can also be used in a nonviable state after lyophilization [16].
Viable allograft fulfills its role as a biologic cover usually for 3–4 weeks until it gets rejected. Furthermore, meshed allograft is used as an overlay for widely meshed autograft (overlay technique) [17].
Glycerolized allograft is useful as permanent coverage for partial-thickness burns until re-epithelialization occurs. It is particularly useful in scald burns of children, as it makes dressing changes easy and less painful [18]. Following FDA and AATB regulations [19], the use of human cadaveric skin is generally considered safe. Nevertheless, there is still a risk for transmitting viral diseases, especially CMV. But with regard to the benefits, these risks are clinically negligible [20].
3.1.1.2 Human Amnion
Human amniotic membrane has been used for centuries as a biological wound dressing. After the first report of its usage in skin transplantations by Davis in 1910 [21], Sabella [22] described the use of amnion in burn patients.
Beneficial effects as faster wound epithelialization, lower rate of burn wound infections, pain relief, fluid loss, and scar reduction as well as shortening of the hospital stay have been proven [23, 24]. Furthermore it is easy to handle for the surgeon and adheres well to the wound bed [25].
Amnion is usually used as viable tissue. Since amnion is gained from living donors, consent has to be taken prior to caesarean section. Apart from that, it has to undergo a very similar process as allograft skin and is screened for any viral or bacterial diseases prior to grafting. Furthermore, the donor is screened to prevent transmission of diseases [17] and finally it is sterilized. Those standardized procedures provide safe usage and make amnion broadly available for specialized burn care providers [26]. When preserved in glycerol, it is a long-time storable nonviable biologic dressing that is enormously valuable in developing countries due to its cost-effectiveness [27].
Recently, there has been a method developed to preserve amnion/chorion that can be stored for up to 5 years under ambient conditions and though keep its biologic activity [28,29,30]. The nonviable and sterilized product still contains growth factors, chemokines, and other regulatory proteins that are important for wound healing, in much higher concentrations compared to other processing methods. The two-layer composition seems to contribute to that, especially chorion [31]. Dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (dHACM) is commercially available (EpiFix; AmnioFix; EpiBurn; MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, GA) and has been used to treat partial-thickness burns as well as full-thickness burns as a temporary treatment and also as overlay [32, 33]. Moreover, it is an ideal scaffold for stem cells in tissue engineering [34].
At our institution, until present, we use amnion mainly for second-degree facial burns because of its advantageously good plasticity. In a previous study, notably less frequent dressing changings and related patient comfort at no higher infection rate with comparable cosmetic outcome were seen when compared to topical antimicrobials [35].
3.1.1.3 Xenograft
Among the different animal skins being studied in the past, only pig skin turned out to be useful due to its histologic structure close to human skin [36, 37]. It shows very little immunologic properties and gets more “ejected” by epithelialization underneath than rejected and should rather be classified as dressing [38]. It provides similar beneficial effects as allograft, but does not show vascularization or capillary ingrowth [39] and therefore xenografts cannot be used to prove readiness of the wound for autografting [40]. In some populations they might also not be used due to ethnic or religious reasons [41] and there is a theoretic risk of zoonoses. Porcine xenograft can be used as a temporary cover for partial-thickness as well as for full-thickness burns or for coverage of donor sites. It is processed and stored similar to allograft [42, 43].
3.1.2 Synthetic and Biosynthetic Materials
Up to date there exists a huge variety of synthetic wound dressings. The below mentioned are a selection of dressings routinely used at our institution.
3.1.2.1 Biobrane®
Biobrane® (Bertek Pharmaceuticals Inc., Morgantown, WV, USA) is a bilayer biosynthetic composite wound dressing, consisting of porcine-derived collagen chemically bound to a nylon mesh that is partially embedded into an ultrathin porous silicone. The silicone film serves as a semipermeable epidermal substitute that allows wound water vapor but still maintains a moist healing environment and serves as a bacterial barrier. Its translucent properties allow for wound judgment without removing the product, and its flexibility enables its usage over joints. Sera and blood clot within this matrix and firmly adhere the fabric to the wound bed until epithelialization occurs and Biobrane® can be easily removed [3, 13, 44, 45]. It accelerates wound healing and lowers pain overall and during dressing changes in partial-thickness burns [45]. It is a safe alternative to allograft as a temporary coverage in third-degree burn wounds when applied to thoroughly debrided, noninfected wound beds. A further advantage is that early mobilization can be performed, while after allograft transplantation the patient or at least the burned area has to be immobilized for a few days. That has clear benefits especially in hand and extremity burns. Overall costs seem not to differ significantly, even though if applied faster than, e.g., allograft, OR time can be saved [13, 46, 47]. It has to be changed usually after 10 days. For some reason, it is currently off the market. There are already existing products that claim to be its successor, but there is still a lack of clinical data [48].
3.1.2.2 TransCyte
TransCyte (Advanced Tissue Sciences, La Jolla, CA, USA) is also a bilayer biosynthetic composite wound dressing with similar properties as Biobrane with additional neonatal in vitro-cultured human fibroblasts integrated into the nylon mesh. Those fibroblasts secrete human dermal collagen, matrix proteins, and growth factors [49, 50]. It can also be used for treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds as well as a temporary substitute for full-thickness wounds [51,52,53,54]. There is evidence that it leads to faster re-epithelialization and fewer dressing changes when compared to Biobrane [50], but it is currently also off the market, probably due to high costs.
3.1.2.3 Suprathel®
Suprathel® (PolyMedics Innovations GmbH, Denkendorf, Germany) is a synthetic copolymer membrane that serves as a temporary replacement of the epithelium and imitates the same. It contains mainly dl-lactide (>70%); the other components are trimethylene carbonate and ɛ-caprolactone. The membrane features a porosity of 80% that enables exudate to drain and it can be elongated up to 2.5 times of its size, which gives the product a very good plasticity. Furthermore it supports wound healing and re-epithelialization [55].
Once applied after meticulous debridement of the wound, it attaches nicely to the moist wound bed. At our institution, we cover it with at least one layer of paraffin gauze under normal gauze to absorb the wound fluid. During healing, it becomes—at least partly—transparent, which allows the physician to judge the wound without removing the membrane. It will consecutively detach from the areas that already show epithelialization and should be trimmed in a circular manner until the whole wound has healed and it can be peeled off painless.
The major advantages of this product are its potent pain-reducing potential and its excellent handling. However, it is quite expensive compared to allogenic material or other products, used for second-degree burns [55, 56].
Especially in patients with extensive burns, STSGs can be saved for coverage of third-degree burns when Suprathel® is applied to the second-degree burn wounds [57]. It may be used not only for superficial partial-thickness burns, but also for mixed-depth partial-thickness burns [58]. Furthermore, it can be used also in an outpatient setting for adults as well as for children [56].
3.1.2.4 Mepilex® Ag
Mepilex Ag® (Mölnlycke Healthcare, Göteborg, Sweden) is an absorbable, silver-coated foam pad. Its innermost silicone layer Safetec® prevents adhesion to the wound bed and therefore reduces pain during dressing changes while the silicone foam absorbs exudate, yet keeps the wound in a moist condition. The broad-spectrum antimicrobial effect of Mepilex® Ag is due to therein comprised silver-sulfate ions and activated carbon [59]. Dressing changes need to take place usually every 3–7 days but are quite easy to handle and relatively pain free compared to dressings without a silicone layer. It furthermore may increase healing time and is more cost efficient than for example Suprathel® ($0.8/cm2 vs. $0.56/cm2) [56, 60]. At our institution it is the standard of care for superficial burn wounds.
3.1.2.5 Aquacel®
The first Aquacel® (ConvaTec Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina, USA) contains a core hydrofiber layer with carboxymethylcellulose and carboxymethylation [61]. An update was Aquacel® Ag, which includes ionic silver. The controlled release of ionic silver absorbs fluids to form a cohesive gel [62]. It provides an antimicrobial protection and protects the wound for up to 14 days [63]. A dressing, which is slightly larger than the wound, is placed on the wound and covered with a sterile secondary layer. Aquacel® is used for burn injuries as well as for chronic wounds and was shown to be safe and effective in partial-thickness burns [61, 64]. Especially in chronic wounds, which tend to develop infections, Aquacel® Ag was proven to decrease wound size and rate of infections [65]. Aquacel® was shown to be more cost effective than other dressings, because it normally does not require a lot of dressing changes [62]. Furthermore, Aquacel® seems to increase the comfort for patients and nurses [66].
3.2 Dermal Replacements/Analogues
3.2.1 Biologic Materials
3.2.1.1 Split-Thickness Skin Graft (STSG)
Split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) are typically indicated for temporary or permanent coverage of cutaneous defects [67]. It consists of epidermis and parts of the dermis, depending on the graft thickness (0.2–0.7 mm). STSG are harvested with a dermatome (constant pressure at a 45° angle to the skin) from thigh or back and other areas, if necessary [68]. Some of the dermal skin appendages remain at the donor site. After harvesting, the graft may be meshed or Meek technique is used and then placed on the clean wound. The STSG can be kept in moist gauze and hydrated until ready to be applied [69]. STSG are well known and accepted for soft-tissue coverage, especially in burns and plastic surgery reconstruction, but also in ulcers [70]. STSG are usually fixed via staples or (sometimes) with sutures. For large sheet grafts, to leave the graft uncovered to allow rolling of fluids is an option [71]. Grafts initially survive via diffusion until a subsequent revascularization occurs. A major limitation of STSG is its often unsatisfying functional and cosmetic results, which affects the patients’ quality of life especially when used in exposed or joint areas. Hypertrophic scarring and poor elasticity and scar contractures are common problems [72]. In order to increase cosmetic and functional results, dermal matrices such as described below have been developed [73, 74]. Nevertheless, STSG remain the gold standard by now.
-
1.
Indications
Immediate coverage of clean soft-tissue defects and accelerated wound healing
Prevention of scar contracture and enhanced cosmetic in superficial wounds
Immediate coverage of burn defects and reduced fluid loss from the wounds
-
2.
Contraindications
Infected wounds or necrotic tissue
Exposure of tendons or bones
Exposure of blood vessels or nerves
-
3.
Donor-site morbidity
The donor site, which is often a large surface of the body, heals by epithelialization and is expected to heal like any abrasion [75]. It needs to be kept in mind that skin grafting produces a wound at the donor site which enlarges the unprotected wound area [75, 76]. It has been shown that scarring in donor site is proportional to the thickness of the graft and to the occurrence of infections [77]. Intensive itching may occur due to exposed nerve endings. It has been shown that returning harvested skin, which is not needed, to the donor site may decrease healing time and wound morbidity [78].
3.2.1.2 Mesh
The technique of meshing was introduced by Tanner et al. in 1963 [79]. To increase the coverable surface, the STSG can be enlarged up to a 1:4 ratio. Larger ratios can be difficult to handle, because the skin tends to curl on itself. Meshing can be performed by hand or the STSG is placed on a plastic sheet and rolled through a machine which cuts the skin sheet on several points, so that a net with preset interstices is produced [80]. The interstices prevent an accumulation of the fluid, which leads to better and safer healing [81]. The location and size of the wound as well as possible donor site determine the meshing ratios [80].
Meek first described this technique in 1958 [82] and it was later modified by other authors [79, 83, 84]. The expansion is efficient and effective. STSG are placed on a cork plate, which is then cut vertically and horizontally into 1 × 1 to 3 × 3 mm squares. The grafts are then transferred to a carrier with aluminum foil backing, the cork plate is removed, and the graft is sprayed with an adhesive spray. After waiting for 5–8 min, the aluminum foil is expanded and the graft can be placed on the wound. An expansion ratio up to 1:9 may be reached. This technique allows to cover larger wounds and if there is a lack of donor sites. That is why severely burned patients can often benefit from this technique [83, 85].
3.2.1.3 Acellular Dermal Matrix
Alloderm® (Life Cell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ, USA) is an acellular human matrix, which is processed from cadaveric dermis and does not contain epithelial elements [86]. The substitute is freeze-dried, which allows the graft to adapt to the dermal structure, and screened for potentially transmissible pathogens [72, 87]. Comparable to Integra®, Alloderm® is placed over the wound after full excision of nonviable tissue. The dermal matrix incorporated with the patients’ own tissue and a thin layer of split-thickness skin graft is placed on top of the Alloderm® graft. Since the cells have been removed, Allograft® is not rejected by the immune system [88]. The outcome is similar to other dermal replacements with favorable results [89]. Recent studies have shown that Alloderm®, aside from burns [88], is also suitable for breast reconstructions, head and neck reconstructions, and abdominal wall/hernia surgery [90, 91]. Since Alloderm® contains elastin and collagen, there is less tension and increased elasticity compared to other dermal substitutes, which results in a less contractions [73].
3.3 Biosynthetic Materials
3.3.1 Integra
Integra® (Integra Life Sciences Corporation, Plainsboro, NJ, USA) consists of two layers: one bovine tendon collagen matrix and one silicone layer. The silicone layer, which prevents water loss and protects the dermis, is peeled away during wound healing and the bovine layer integrates with the human skin [92]. It is used as a dermal skin substitute and placed over the wound after full excision of nonviable tissue. After initial healing of approximately 3 weeks, a thin autograft is placed onto the neo-dermis [92]. In several studies, Integra® seemed to have a better outcome regarding wound healing time compared to autograft, allograft, or xenograft, but had a higher rate of infections than other substitutes such as Biobrane® [77, 93, 94]. Long-term use and outcomes and outcomes in terms of length of hospital stay, cosmetic results, and functional outcome are mentioned to be favorable [95]. In very large burns, it can be used under widely meshed autografts (4:1–10:1) with an overlay (e.g., allograft or Biobrane).
3.3.2 Matriderm
Matriderm® (MedSkin solutions Dr. Suwelack AG, Billerbeck, Germany) is a highly porous membrane composed of three-dimensionally coupled collagen and elastin. The collagen is gained from a bovine dermis and the elastin from a bovine nuchal ligament by hydrolysis [72]. After being sterilized and freeze-dried, Matriderm® can be stored at room temperature [72]. Matriderm® can be engrafted in a one-step procedure with a thin skin graft after full excision of the nonviable tissue [96]. Due to its good dermal wound bed preparation with extensive formation of rete ridges and capillary loops, the skin barrier and elasticity are close to the normal human skin, which is surrounding the wound [72, 97, 98]. It is reported to have minimal complications and good clinical outcomes and was proved valuable in restoring skin elasticity and skin barrier [72]. Survival rate is reported similar to other dermal matrices [99, 100].
4 Partial- Versus Full-Thickness Burns: Using the Right Substitute
Given the huge number of different skin substitutes available, the selection of product to use for a certain patient is always an individual decision based on the experience and personal preference of the surgeon. The clinician has to take the advantages and disadvantages of the product into account and ultimately, in the era of cost pressure on our healthcare system, cost-effectiveness. Given the fact that procedure time makes up around 40% of operating room time in a burn OR [101], not only material costs but also applicability in a timely manner have to be considered.
All abovementioned temporary substitutes are used at our institution. In partial-thickness facial burns—especially in children—amnion is a good option, as well as for hand burns. Here, also Suprathel is a very good alternative. If infection is present, biologic products or products containing silver may be preferred in combination with frequent dressing changes and/or debridements. For full-thickness burns, our standard of care is either allograft or xenograft until enough donor sites are available, even though the above mentioned are used if needed. In the end it may vary between institutions and every clinician has his or her preferred products.
References
Pereira C, Murphy K, Herndon D. Outcome measures in burn care: is mortality dead? Burns. 2004;30(8):761–71.
Jeschke MG, Pinto R, Kraft R, Nathens AB, Finnerty CC, Gamelli RL, Gibran NS, Klein MB, Arnoldo BD, Tompkins RG, Herndon DN, Inflammation and the Host Response to Injury Collaborative Research Program. Morbidity and survival probability in burn patients in modern burn care. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(4):808.
Jeschke MG, Shahrokhi S, Finnerty CC, Branski LK, Dibildox M. Wound coverage technologies in burn care: established techniques. J Burn Care Res 2018; 39:313–8.
Janžekovic Z. A new concept in the early excision and immediate grafting of burns. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1970;10(12):1103–8.
Merrell SW, Saffle JR, Larson CM, Sullivan JJ. The declining incidence of fatal sepsis following thermal injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1989;29(10):1362–6.
Herndon DN, Barrow RE, Rutan RL, Rutan TC, Desai MH, Abston S. A comparison of conservative versus early excision. Therapies in severely burned patients. Ann Surg. 1989;209(5):547.
Dobke MK, Simoni J, Ninnemann JL, Garrett J, Harnar TJ. Endotoxemia after burn injury: effect of early excision on circulating endotoxin levels. J Burn Care Res. 1989;10(2):107–11.
Barret J, Herndon D. Modulation of inflammatory and catabolic responses in severely burned children by early burn wound excision in the first 24 hours. Arch Surg. 2003;138(2):127–32.
Rosenberg L, Shoham Y, Krieger Y, Rubin G, Sander F, Koller J, David K, Egosi D, Ahuja R, Singer AJ. Minimally invasive burn care: a review of seven clinical studies of rapid and selective debridement using a bromelain-based debriding enzyme (NexoBrid®). Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2015;28(4):264–74.
Ziegler B, Hirche C, Horter J, Kiefer J, Grützner PA, Kremer T, Kneser U, Münzberg M. In view of standardization part 2: management of challenges in the initial treatment of burn patients in Burn Centers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Burns. 2017;43(2):318–25.
Heyneman A, Hoeksema H, Vandekerckhove D, Pirayesh A, Monstrey S. The role of silver sulphadiazine in the conservative treatment of partial thickness burn wounds: a systematic review. Burns. 2016;42(7):1377–86.
Sheridan RL, Tompkins RG. Skin substitutes in burns. Burns. 1999;25(2):97–103.
Austin RE, Merchant N, Shahrokhi S, Jeschke MG. A comparison of Biobrane™ and cadaveric allograft for temporizing the acute burn wound: cost and procedural time. Burns. 2015;41(4):749–53.
Robb EC, Bechmann N, Plessinger RT, Boyce ST, Warden GD, Kagan RJ. Storage media and temperature maintain normal anatomy of cadaveric human skin for transplantation to full-thickness skin wounds. J Burn Care Res. 2001;22(6):393–6.
Ben-Bassat H, Chaouat M, Segal N, Zumai E, Wexler M, Eldad A. How long can cryopreserved skin be stored to maintain adequate graft performance? Burns. 2001;27(5):425–31.
Mackie DP. The Euro Skin Bank: development and application of glycerol-preserved allografts. J Burn Care Res. 1997;18(1):s7–9.
Kagan RJ, Robb EC, Plessinger RT. Human skin banking. Clin Lab Med. 2005;25(3):587–605.
Khoo T, Halim A, Saad AM, Dorai A. The application of glycerol-preserved skin allograft in the treatment of burn injuries: an analysis based on indications. Burns. 2010;36(6):897–904.
American Association of Tissue Banks. AATB Standards for tissue banking. 14th ed. 2016 archive.constantcontact.com/fs146/1102056357439/archive/1125303416087.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2018.
Herndon DN, Rose JK. Cadaver skin allograft and the transmission of human cytomegalovirus in burn patients: benefits clearly outweigh risks. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;182(3):263–4.
Davis JS. Skin transplantation. Johns Hopkins Hosp Rep. 1910;15:307–96.
Sabella N. Use of the fetal membranes in skin grafting. Med Rec NY. 1913;83:478–80.
Kesting MR, Wolff K-D, Hohlweg-Majert B, Steinstraesser L. The role of allogenic amniotic membrane in burn treatment. J Burn Care Res. 2008;29(6):907–16.
Mostaque AK, Rahman KBA. Comparisons of the effects of biological membrane (amnion) and silver sulfadiazine in the management of burn wounds in children. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32(2):200–9.
Gajiwala K, Gajiwala AL. Evaluation of lyophilised, gamma-irradiated amnion as a biological dressing. Cell Tissue Bank. 2004;5(2):73–80.
Herndon DN, Branski LK. Contemporary methods allowing for safe and convenient use of amniotic membrane as a biologic wound dressing for burns. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(2):S9–S10.
Maral T, Borman H, Arslan H, Demirhan B, Akinbingol G, Haberal M. Effectiveness of human amnion preserved long-term in glycerol as a temporary biological dressing. Burns. 1999;25(7):625–35.
Koob TJ, Rennert R, Zabek N, Massee M, Lim JJ, Temenoff JS, Li WW, Gurtner G. Biological properties of dehydrated human amnion/chorion composite graft: implications for chronic wound healing. Int Wound J. 2013;10(5):493–500.
Koob TJ, Lim JJ, Massee M, Zabek N, Denoziere G. Properties of dehydrated human amnion/chorion composite grafts: implications for wound repair and soft tissue regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014;102(6):1353–62.
Koob TJ, Lim JJ, Massee M, Zabek N, Rennert R, Gurtner G, Li WW. Angiogenic properties of dehydrated human amnion/chorion allografts: therapeutic potential for soft tissue repair and regeneration. Vasc Cell. 2014;6(1):10.
Koob TJ, Lim JJ, Zabek N, Massee M. Cytokines in single layer amnion allografts compared to multilayer amnion/chorion allografts for wound healing. J Bioml Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015;103(5):1133–40.
Tenenhaus M. The use of dehydrated human amnion/chorion membranes in the treatment of burns and complex wounds: current and future applications. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(2):S11–S3.
Reilly DA, Hickey S, Glat P, Lineaweaver WC, Goverman J. Clinical experience: using dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allografts for acute and reconstructive burn care. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(2):S19–26.
Niknejad H, Peirovi H, Jorjani M, Ahmadiani A, Ghanavi J, Seifalian AM. Properties of the amniotic membrane for potential use in tissue engineering. Eur Cells Mater. 2008;15:88–99.
Branski LK, Herndon DN, Celis MM, Norbury WB, Masters OE, Jeschke MG. Amnion in the treatment of pediatric partial-thickness facial burns. Burns. 2008;34(3):393–9.
Bromberg BE, Song IC, Mohn MP. The use of pig skin as a temporary biological dressing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1965;36(1):80–90.
Ersek RA, Hachen H. Porcine xenografts in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Ann Plast Surg. 1980;5(6):464–70.
Burd A, Lam P, Lau H. Allogenic skin: transplant or dressing? Burns. 2002;28(4):358–66.
Song IC, Bromberg BE, Mohn MP, Koehnlein E. Heterografts as biological dressings for large skin wounds. Surgery. 1966;59(4):576–83.
Artz CP, Rittenbury MS, Yarbrough D 3rd. An appraisal of allografts and xenografts as biological dressings for wounds and burns. Ann Surg. 1972;175(6):934–8.
Chiu T, Burd A. “Xenograft” dressing in the treatment of burns. Clin Dermatol. 2005;23(4):419–23.
Weiss RA. Xenografts and retroviruses. Science. 1999;285(5431):1221–2.
Hermans MH. Porcine xenografts vs. (cryopreserved) allografts in the management of partial thickness burns: is there a clinical difference? Burns. 2014;40(3):408–15.
Greenwood JE, Clausen J, Kavanagh S. Experience with biobrane: uses and caveats for success. Eplasty. 2009;9:e25.
Lal S, Barrow RE, Wolf SE, Chinkes DL, Hart DW, Heggers JP, Herndon DN. Biobrane® improves wound healing in burned children without increased risk of infection. Shock. 2000;14(3):314–8.
Gonce S, Miskell P, Waymack J. A comparison of Biobrane vs. homograft for coverage of contaminated burn wounds. Burns. 1988;14(5):409–12.
Busche M, Herold C, Schedler A, Knobloch K, Vogt P, Rennekampff H. The Biobrane glove in burn wounds of the hand. Evaluation of the functional and aesthetic outcome and comparison of costs with those of conventional wound management. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2009;41(6):348–54.
Woodroof EA, Phipps RR. Skin substitute and wound dressing with added anti-scar compound. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9439808B2/en. Accessed 17 Mar 2018.
Noordenbos J, Doré C, Hansbrough JF. Safety and efficacy of TransCyte for the treatment of partial-thickness burns. J Burn Care Res. 1999;20(4):275–81.
Kumar RJ, Kimble RM, Boots R, Pegg SP. Treatment of partial-thickness burns: a prospective, randomized trial using Transcyte™. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(8):622–6.
Hansbrough J. Dermagraft-TC for partial-thickness burns: a clinical evaluation. J Burn Care Res. 1997;18(1):s25–s8.
Hansbrough JF, Mozingo DW, Kealey GP, Davis M, Gidner A, Gentzkow GD. Clinical trials of a biosynthetic temporary skin replacement, Dermagraft-Transitional Covering, compared with cryopreserved human cadaver skin for temporary coverage of excised burn wounds. J Burn Care Res. 1997;18(1):43–51.
Purdue GF, Hunt JL, Still JM Jr, , Law EJ, Herndon DN, Goldfarb IW, Schiller WR, Hansbrough JF, Hickerson WL, Himel HN, Kealey GP, Twomey J, Missavage AE, Solem LD, Davis M, Totoritis M, Gentzkow GD. A multicenter clinical trial of a biosynthetic skin replacement, Dermagraft-TC, compared with cryopreserved human cadaver skin for temporary coverage of excised burn wounds. J Burn Care Res 1997;18(1):52–57.
Demling RH, DeSanti L. Management of partial thickness facial burns (comparison of topical antibiotics and bio-engineered skin substitutes). Burns. 1999;25(3):256–61.
Schwarze H, Küntscher M, Uhlig C, Hierlemann H, Prantl L, Ottomann C, Hartmann B. Suprathel, a new skin substitute, in the management of partial-thickness burn wounds: results of a clinical study. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60(2):181–5.
Hundeshagen G, Collins VN, Wurzer P, Sherman W, Voigt CD, Cambiaso-Daniel J, Nunez Lopez O, Sheaffer J, Herndon DN, Finnerty CC, Branski LK. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing the outpatient treatment of pediatric and adult partial-thickness burns with Suprathel or Mepilex ag. J Burn Care Res. 2018;39(2):261–7.
Keck M, Selig H, Lumenta D, Kamolz L, Mittlböck M, Frey M. The use of Suprathel® in deep dermal burns: first results of a prospective study. Burns. 2012;38(3):388–95.
Highton L, Wallace C, Shah M. Use of Suprathel® for partial thickness burns in children. Burns. 2013;39(1):136–41.
Barrett S. Mepilex® Ag: an antimicrobial, absorbent foam dressing with Safetac® technology. Br J Nurs. 2009;18(20):S28. S30–6
Kee EG, Kimble R, Cuttle L, Khan A, Stockton K. Randomized controlled trial of three burns dressings for partial thickness burns in children. Burns. 2015;41(5):946–55.
Vloemans AF, Soesman AM, Kreis RW, Middelkoop E. A newly developed hydrofibre dressing, in the treatment of partial-thickness burns. Burns. 2001;27(2):167–73.
Kuo FC, Chen B, Lee MS, Yen SH, Wang JW. AQUACEL® Ag surgical dressing reduces surgical site infection and improves patient satisfaction in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1262108.
Bowler PG, Jones SA, Walker M, Parsons D. Microbicidal properties of a silver-containing Hydrofiber® dressing against a variety of burn wound pathogens. J Burn Care. 2004;12(3):288–94.
Caruso DM, Foster KN, Blome-Eberwein SA, Twomey JA, Herndon DN, Luterman A, Silverstein P, Antimarino JR, Bauer GJ. Randomized clinical study of Hydrofiber dressing with silver or silver sulfadiazine in the management of partial-thickness burns. J Burn Care Res. 2006;27(3):298–309.
Coutts P, Sibbald RG. The effect of a silver-containing Hydrofiber dressing on superficial wound bed and bacterial balance of chronic wounds. Int Wound J. 2005;2(4):348–56.
Verbelen J, JHoeksema H, Heyneman A, Pirayesh A, Monstrey S. Aquacel® Ag dressing versus Acticoat™ dressing in partial thickness burns: a prospective, randomized, controlled study in 100 patients. Part 1: burn wound healing. Burns. 2014;40(3):416–27.
Snyder RJ, Doyle H, Delbridge T. Applying split-thickness skin grafts: a step-by-step clinical guide and nursing implications. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2001;47(11):20–6.
Høgsberg T, Bjarnsholt T, Thomsen JS, Kirketerp-Møller K. Success rate of split-thickness skin grafting of chronic venous leg ulcers depends on the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a retrospective study. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20492.
Boaheme K, Richmon J, Byrne P, Ishii L. Hinged forearm split-thickness skin graft for radial artery fasciocutaneous flap donor site repair. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011;13(6):392–4.
Roukis TS, Zgonis T. Skin grafting techniques for soft-tissue coverage of diabetic foot and ankle wounds. J Wound Care. 2005;14:173–6.
Yenidünya MO, Özdengill E, Emsen I. Split-thickness skin graft fixation with surgical drape. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106(6):1429–30.
Min JH, Yun IS, Lew DH, Roh TS, Lee WJ. The use of matriderm and autologous skin graft in the treatment of full thickness skin defects. Arch Plast Surg. 2014;41(4):330–6.
Haslik W, Kamolz LP, Nathschläger G, Andel H, Meissl G, Frey M. First experiences with the collagen-elastin matrix Matriderm as a dermal substitute in severe burn injuries of the hand. Burns. 2007;33(3):364–8.
Ryssel H, Gazyakan E, Germann G, Ohlbauer M. The use of MatriDerm in early excision and simultaneous autologous skin grafting in burns: a pilot study. Burns. 2008;34(1):93–7.
Otene CI, Olaitan PB, Ogbonnaya IS, Nnabuko RE. Donor site morbidity following harvest of split-thickness skin grafts in South Eastern Nigeria. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2011;1(2):86–96.
Weingart D, Stoll P. The epithelialization of split skin graft donor sites—a test model for the efficacy of topical wound therapeutic agents. Eur J Plast Surg. 1993;16(1):22–5.
Heimbach D, Luterman A, Burke J, Cram A, Herndon D, Hunt J, Jordan M, McManus W, Solem L, Warden G, et al. Artificial dermis for major burns. A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 1988;208(3):313–20.
Henderson J, Arya R, Gillespie P. Skin graft meshing, over-meshing and cross-meshing. Int J Surg. 2012;10(9):547–50.
Tanner JC, Vandeput J, Olley JF. The mesh skin graft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1964;34:287–92.
Pripotnev S, Papp A. Split thickness skin graft meshing ratio indications and common practices. Burns. 2017;43(8):1775–81.
Simman R, Phavixay L. Split-thickness skin grafts remain the gold standard for the closure of large acute and chronic wounds. J Am Col Certif Wound Spec. 2011;3(3):55–9.
Meek CP. Successful microdermagrafting using the Meek-Wall microdermatome. Am J Surg. 1958;96(4):557–8.
Kreis RW, Mackie DP, Hermans RP, Vloemans AR. Expansion technique for skin grafts: comparison between mesh and Meek island (sandwiched-) grafts. Burns. 1994;20:39–42.
Nystrom G. Sowing of small skin graft particles as a method for epithelization especially of extensive wound surfaces. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull. 1959;23(3):226–39.
Hsieh CS, Schuong JY, Huang WS, Huang TT. Five years’ experience of the modified Meek technique in the management of extensive burns. Burns. 2008;34(4):350–4.
Jeschke MG, Shahrokhi S, Finnerty CC, Branski LK, Dibildox M. Wound coverage technologies in burn care: established techniques. J Burn Care Res. 2014;10:e3182920d29.
Verkey M, Ding J, Tredget EE. Advances in skin substitutes—potential of tissue engineered skin for facilitating anti-fibrotic healing. J Funct Biomater. 2015;6(3):547–63.
Metcalfe AD, Ferguson MW. Tissue engineering of replacement skin: the crossroads of biomaterials, wound healing, embryonic development, stem cells and regeneration. J R Soc Interface. 2007;4(14):413–37.
Sheridan RL, Choucair RJ. Acellular allogenic dermis does not hinder initial engraftment in burn wound resurfacing and reconstruction. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1997;18:496–9.
Sobti N, Liao EC. Surgeon-controlled study and meta-analysis comparing flexHD and alloderm in immediate breast reconstruction outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(5):959–67.
Huntington CR, Cox TC, Blair LJ, Schell S, Randolph D, Prasad T, Lincourt A, Heniford BT, Augenstein VA. Biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: outcomes, recurrence, and charge analysis. Surgery. 2016;160(6):1517–27.
Hansen SL, Voigt DW, Wiebelhaus P, Paul CN. Using skin replacement products to treat burns and wounds. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2001;14(1):37–44.
Peck MD, Kessler M, Meyer AA, Bonham Morris PA. A trial of the effectiveness of artificial dermis in the treatment of patients with burns greater than 45% total body surface area. J Trauma. 2002;52(5):971–8.
Heimbach DM, Warden GD, Luterman A, Jordan MH, Ozobia N, Ryan CM, Voigt DW, Hickerson WL, Saffle JR, DeClement FA, Sheridan RL, Dimick AR. Multicenter postapproval clinical trial of Integra dermal regeneration template for burn treatment. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2003;24(1):42–8.
Branski LK, Herndon DN, Pereira C, Mlcak RP, Celis MM, Lee JO, Sanford AP, Norbury WB, Zhang XJ, Jeschke MG. Longitudinal assessment of Integra in primary burn management: a randomized pediatric clinical trial. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(11):2615–23.
De Vries HJ, Mekkes JR, Middelkoop E, Hinrichs WL, Wildevuur CR, Westerhof W. Dermal substitutes for full-thickness wounds in a one-stage grafting model. Wound Repair Regen. 1993;1(4):244–52.
Jeon H, Kim J, Yeo H, Jeong H, Son D, Han K. Treatment of diabetic foot ulcer using matriderm in comparison with a skin graft. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40(4):403–8.
Hamuy R, Kinoshita N, Yoshimoto H, Hayashida K, Houbara S, Nakashima M, Suzuki K, Mitsutake N, Mussazhanova Z, Kashiyama K, Hirano A, Akita S. One-stage, simultaneous skin grafting with artificial dermis and basic fibroblast growth factor successfully improves elasticity with maturation of scar formation. Wound Repair Regen. 2013;21(1):141–54.
Cervelli V, Brinci L, Spallone D, Tati E, Palla L, Lucarini L, De Angelis B. The use of MatriDerm® and skin grafting in post-traumatic wounds. Int Wound J. 2011;8(4):400–5.
Philandrianos C, Andrac-Meyer L, Mordon S, Feuerstein JM, Sabatier F, Veran J, Magalon G, Casanova D. Comparison of five dermal substitutes in full-thickness skin wound healing in a porcine model. Burns. 2012;38(6):820–9.
Madni TD, Imran JB, Clark A, Arnoldo BA, Phelan HA III, Wolf SE. Analysis of operating room efficiency in a burn center. J Burn Care Res. 2018;39:89–93.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Popp, D., Tapking, C., Branski, L.K. (2019). Skin Substitutes for Burn Wounds. In: Duscher, D., Shiffman, M.A. (eds) Regenerative Medicine and Plastic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19962-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19962-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19961-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19962-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)