| Literature DB >> 27909641 |
Stephen S Cai1, Arvind U Gowda2, Karan Chopra3, Rachel Waldman1, Ronald P Silverman1, Yvonne M Rasko1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Epidermal grafting has several advantages over full-thickness or split-thickness grafts in the treatment of complex non-healing wounds. These include the low risk of donor site complications, minimal patient discomfort, and abstention from the operating room. Traditionally, the lack of reliable epidermal harvesting techniques has limited its clinical utilization. The development of an automated suction blister epidermal graft (SBEG) harvesting device may facilitate clinical utilization of this technique. The authors present a case series of multimorbid patients who were poor surgical candidates and were treated with this technique.Entities:
Keywords: cellutome; complex wounds; epidermal grafting; suction blister epidermal grafting
Year: 2016 PMID: 27909641 PMCID: PMC5130354 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.853
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Epidermal Autologous Skin Graft Harvested Using the CelluTome™ Epidermal Harvesting System.
(A) The device is securely fastened to the patient’s right thigh and suction is applied. (B) When sufficient microblisters have formed, the epidermal graft is harvested onto a (C) perforated TegadermTM film. (D) Immediately post-harvest, the donor site demonstrated minimal bleeding. (E) The harvested graft is directly applied to the recipient site and covered with an appropriate dressing. (F) Islands of epithelialization can be observed at four weeks postoperatively.
Patient Demographic and Clinical Characteristics
AKA - above knee amputation; CA – cancer; CVI - chronic venous insufficiency; DM - diabetes mellitus; HBO - hyperbaric oxygen; HIV - human immunodeficiency virus; IMSP - immunosuppressed: immunotherapy or chronic steroid use; IND -incision and drainage; LWC - local wound care; ORIF - open reduction internal fixation; PAD - peripheral artery disease; RLE - right lower extremity; SA - polysubstance abuse; SM – smoker; STSG - split-thickness skin graft; VAC - vacuum-assisted closure
| Age (y) | Sex | Comorbidities | Wound Type | Location | Prior Treatment | Wound Duration (mos) | ||
| 1 | 13 | M | None | Abscess | Right Thigh | LWC, VAC | 1.1 | |
| 2 | 32 | F | DM | Hidradenitis | L Axilla | LWC, IND | 61.0 | |
| 3 | 46 | M | SM | Hidradenitis | R Buttock | LWC, IND | 25.9 | |
| 4 | 54 | F | HIV, CVI, SA | Venous Ulcer | RLE | LWC, IND, STSG | 43.5 | |
| 5 | 56 | F | DM, IMSP | Renal Transplant | Abdomen | LWC | 3.8 | |
| 6 | 58 | M | IMSP | Fasciotomy | L Groin | LWC, VAC | 5.3 | |
| 7 | 59 | M | IMSP, SM, SA | Infected Hardware | L Ankle | LWC, IND | 1.0 | |
| 8 | 63 | M | Basal cell CA, SM | CA Resection | L shoulder | LWC, IND, VAC | 4.3 | |
| 9 | 65 | M | HIV, DM | ORIF | L Ankle | LWC | 12.5 | |
| 10 | 76 | F | Colon CA, CVI, SM | Vascular Graft Failure | L AKA Stump | LWC, IND, STSG, HBO | 4.5 | |
| 11 | 81 | F | Ovarian CA | CA Resection | Abdomen | LWC, VAC | 6.2 | |
| 12 | 82 | F | CVI, PAD | Vascular Graft Failure | RLE | LWC, IND, VAC | 6.2 | |
Patient Treatment and Outcomes
CR - complete resolution; LTFU - lost to follow-up; PR - partial resolution
| Initial Wound Size (cm) | Donor Site Healing (wks) | Time to Follow-up (wks) | Final Wound Size (cm) | Wound Reduction (%) | Outcome | |
| 1 | 10.5 x 2.0 | < 1 | 2.7 | 2 x 2 | 81 | PR |
| 2 | 4.8 x 5.0 | 1 | 16.7 | 1 x 1 | 96 | PR |
| 3 | 5.0 x 3.5 | 1 | 12.9 | 2.5 x 1.5 | 79 | PR |
| 4 | 5.0 x 5.5 | 1 | 10 | 5 x 4.2 | 24 | |
| 6.8 x 5.2 | 1 | 16 | 6.5 x 4.5 | 17 | ||
| 6.5 x 4.5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | LTFU1 | |
| 5 | 5.0 x 4.5 | 1 | 18 | 0 x 0 | 100 | CR |
| 6 | 15.3 x 4.0 | 1 | 13.1 | 0 x 0 | 100 | CR |
| 7 | 4.8 x 1.8 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | LTFU2 |
| 8 | 5.0 x 3.0 | 1 | 6.1 | 0 x 0 | 100 | CR |
| 9 | 4.2 x 2.5 | <1 | 7.6 | 3.1 x 2 | 41 | PR |
| 10 | 2.5 x 2.0 | 1 | 5.1 | 0 x 0 | 100 | CR |
| 11 | 5.0 x 4.0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | LTFU3 |
| 12 | 14.0 x 20.0 | 1 | 19 | 4 x 1.5 | 98 | PR |
| 1 SBEG was attempted on three separate occasions; the patient did not return for follow-up after her third procedure. | ||||||
| 2 The wound was re-explored after four days and orthopedic hardware was removed in the operating room. | ||||||
| 3 Patient deteriorated clinically after two days and warranted ICU admission. The patient declined further treatment. | ||||||
Figure 2A 58-Year-Old Male with an Extensive Surgical History Who Declined to Undergo Another Operation Under General Anesthesia.
(A) Wound measured 15.3 x 4 cm on presentation. (B) Epidermal graft is performed and complete resolution of the wound is achieved at 13 weeks without complications.
Figure 363-Year-Old Current Smoker of Over 30 Pack-Years Status-Post Radical Resection and External Radiation for Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Left Shoulder.
(A) Wound measured 5 x 3 cm. (B) Epidermal graft is performed and vacuum-assisted closure is applied for one week postoperatively. (C) Islands of epithelialization can be seen within the wound bed two weeks from the index operation. (D) Complete resolution of the wound is achieved at six weeks without complications.