BACKGROUND: Standard compression therapy for venous ulcers of the legs does not promote healing. Although autografting accelerates tissue repair, it is difficult to use in patients with concomitant diseases or when multiple grafts are required. The amniotic membrane has been used as a covering material and promotes epithelialization, making it a good potential treatment option when autografts are not indicated. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the literature on the safety and efficacy of amniotic membrane grafting and compare the cost of currently available grafts (autografts, amniotic membrane grafts, and biocompatible skin substitutes) to promote tissue repair in venous ulcers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on the use of amniotic membrane grafts for the treatment of venous ulcers was performed up to 2010. A cost-minimization analysis of direct healthcare costs was then performed (at 3 and 6 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the stability of the results. RESULTS: Only 1 study addressing safety and efficacy was identified. The cost-minimization analysis showed that autografts are always the least-expensive option (€ 1053 compared with € 1825 for amniotic membrane grafts and € 5767 for biocompatible skin grafts). At 6 months, however, amniotic membrane grafts would have cost € 6765 less than the use of biocompatible skin substitutes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having excellent therapeutic potential for the re-epithelialization of venous ulcers that do not respond to conventional treatment, amniotic membrane transplant remains an experimental therapy. Autograft is the most efficient treatment but amniotic membrane graft is less expensive than the use of biocompatible skin substitutes.
BACKGROUND: Standard compression therapy for venous ulcers of the legs does not promote healing. Although autografting accelerates tissue repair, it is difficult to use in patients with concomitant diseases or when multiple grafts are required. The amniotic membrane has been used as a covering material and promotes epithelialization, making it a good potential treatment option when autografts are not indicated. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the literature on the safety and efficacy of amniotic membrane grafting and compare the cost of currently available grafts (autografts, amniotic membrane grafts, and biocompatible skin substitutes) to promote tissue repair in venous ulcers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on the use of amniotic membrane grafts for the treatment of venous ulcers was performed up to 2010. A cost-minimization analysis of direct healthcare costs was then performed (at 3 and 6 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the stability of the results. RESULTS: Only 1 study addressing safety and efficacy was identified. The cost-minimization analysis showed that autografts are always the least-expensive option (€ 1053 compared with € 1825 for amniotic membrane grafts and € 5767 for biocompatible skin grafts). At 6 months, however, amniotic membrane grafts would have cost € 6765 less than the use of biocompatible skin substitutes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having excellent therapeutic potential for the re-epithelialization of venous ulcers that do not respond to conventional treatment, amniotic membrane transplant remains an experimental therapy. Autograft is the most efficient treatment but amniotic membrane graft is less expensive than the use of biocompatible skin substitutes.