advertising
-
1.
Mathes SJ & Nahai F: Reconstructive Surgery: Principles, Anatomy & Technique. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
-
2.
Janis JE , Kwon RK & Attinger CE: The new reconstructive ladder: modifications to the traditional model. Plast Reconstr Surg 127 (suppl 1 S): 205S, 2011.
-
3.
MacNeil S: Progress and opportunities for tissue-engineered skin. Nature 445 : 874, 2007.
-
4.
Sheridan RL & Tompkins RG: Skin substitutes in burns. Burns 25 : 97, 1999.
-
5.
Stegeman SA , van Doorn LP & Calame JJ et al.: Use of cadaveric donor skin to predict success of a definitive split-thickness skin graft in complicated wounds. Wounds 22 : 284, 2010.
-
6.
Leon-Villapalos J , Eldardiri M & Dziewulski P: The use of human deceased donor skin allograft in burn care. Cell Tissue Bank 11 : 99, 2010.
-
7.
Kim PJ , Heilala M & Steinberg JS et al.: Bioengineered alternative tissues and hyperbaric oxygen in lower extremity wound healing. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 24 : 529, 2007.
-
8.
Brusselaers N , Pirayesh A & Hoeksema H et al.: Skin replacement in burn wounds. J Trauma 68 : 490, 2010.
-
9.
Chiu T & Burd A: “Xenograft” dressing in the treatment of burns. Clin Dermatol 23 : 419, 2005.
-
10.
Vardaxis NJ , Brans TA & Boon ME et al.: Confocal laser scanning microscopy of porcine skin: implications for human wound healing studies. J Anat 190 : 601, 1997.
-
11.
Armour AD , Fish JS & Woodhouse KA et al.: A comparison of human and porcine acellularized dermis: interactions with human fibroblasts in vitro. Plast Reconstr Surg 117 : 845, 2006.
-
12.
Lineen E & Namias N: Biologic dressing in burns. J Craniofac Surg 19 : 923, 2008.
-
13.
Swift ME , Kleinman HK & DiPietro LA: Impaired wound repair and delayed angiogenesis in aged mice. Lab Invest 79 : 1479, 1999.
-
14.
Donegan RJ , Schmidt BM & Blume PA: An overview of factors maximizing successful split-thickness skin grafting in diabetic wound. Diabet Foot Ankle 5 : 24769, 2014.
-
15.
Tavis MJ , Thornton JW & Harney JH: Graft adherence to deepithelialized surfaces: a comparative study. Ann Surg 184 : 594, 1976.
-
16.
Zajicek R , Mandys V & Mestak O et al.: Human keratinocyte growth and differentiation on acellular porcine dermal matrix in relation to wound healing potential. ScientificWorldJournal 2012 : 727352, 2012.
-
17.
Chatterjee DS: A controlled comparative study of the use of porcine xenograft in the treatment of partial thickness skin loss in an occupational health centre. Curr Med Res Opin 5 : 726, 1978.
-
18.
Aronoff M , Fleishman P & Simon DL: Experience in the application of porcine xenografts to split-graft donor sites. J Trauma 16 : 280, 1976.
-
19.
El-Khatib HA , Hammouda A & Al-Ghol A et al.: Aldehyde-treated porcine skin versus biobrane as biosynthetic skin substitutes for excised burn wounds: case series and review of the literature. Ann Burns Fire Disasters 20 : 78, 2007.
-
20.
Chern PL , Baum CL & Arpey CJ: Biologic dressings: current applications and limitations in dermatologic surgery. Dermatol Surg 35 : 891, 2009.
-
21.
Davis DA & Arpey CJ: Porcine heterografts in dermatologic surgery and reconstruction. Dermatol Surg 26 : 76, 2000.
-
22.
Feng X , Shen R & Tan J et al.: The study of inhibiting systematic inflammatory response syndrome by applying xenogenic (porcine) acellular dermal matrix on second-degree burns. Burns 33 : 477, 2007.
-
23.
Burleson R & Eiseman B: Mechanisms of antibacterial effect of biologic dressings. Ann Surg 177 : 181, 1973.
-
24.
Nelson A , Wright-Hughes A & Backhouse MR et al.: CODIFI (Concordance in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Infection): a cross-sectional study of wound swab versus tissue sampling in infected diabetic foot ulcers in England. BMJ Open 8 : e019437, 2018.
- PubMed Citation
- Article by Jenna C. Bekeny
- Article by Christopher Kennedy
- Article by Jon D. Turissini
- Article by Iram Naz
- Article by Elliot T. Walters
- Article by Paul J. Kim
- Article by Karen K. Evans
- Article by John Steinberg
- Article by Tammer Elmarsafi
- Article by Christopher E. Attinger
- Similar articles in PubMed
Utility of Porcine-Derived Xenograft as an Adjunct to Split-Thickness Skin Grafting in Lower-Extremity Wounds
Search for other papers by Jenna C. Bekeny in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christopher Kennedy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jon D. Turissini in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Iram Naz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Elliot T. Walters in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Paul J. Kim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Karen K. Evans in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by John Steinberg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tammer Elmarsafi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christopher E. Attinger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Objective
Porcine-derived xenograft biological dressings (PXBDs) are occasionally used to prepare chronic wound beds for definitive closure before split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs). We sought to determine whether PXBD influences rate of STSG take in lower-extremity wounds.
Methods
Lower-extremity wounds treated with STSGs were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included in one of two groups: wound bed preparation with PXBD before STSG or no preparation. Patients were excluded if they received wound bed preparation via another method. Patient demographics, comorbidities, wound history, wound bed preparation, and 30- and 60-day outcomes were collected.
Results
There was no difference in healing outcomes between the PXBD (n = 27) and no preparation (n = 39) groups. At 30- and 60-day follow-up, percentage of STSG take was not significantly different between groups (77.9% versus 79.0%, P30 = .818; 82.2% versus 80.9%, P60 = .422). Mean wound sizes at these follow-up periods were not different (4.4 cm2 versus 5.1 cm2, P30 = .902; 1.2 cm2 versus 1.1 cm2, P60 = .689). The PXBD group had a higher mean ± SD hemoglobin A1c level (8.3 ± 3.5 versus 6.9 ± 1.6; P = .074) and age (64.9 ± 12.8 years versus 56.3 ± 11.9 years; P = .007) versus the no preparation group.
Conclusions
Application of PXBDs for wound bed preparation had no effect on wound healing compared with no wound bed preparation. The two groups varied only by mean age and hemoglobin A1c level. The PXBD may be beneficial, but these results call for randomized controlled trials to determine the true impact of PXBDs on wound healing. In addition, PXBDs may have utility outside of clinically oriented outcomes, and future work should address patient-reported outcomes and pain scores with this adjunct.
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.
advertising
