Temporary coverage of burns with a xenograft and sequential excision, compared with total early excision and autograft.

During the 80s and 90s, early and total excision of full thickness burns followed by immediate autograft was the most common treatment, with repeated excision and grafting, mostly for failed grafts. It was hypothesized, therefore, that delayed coverage with an autograft preceded by a temporary xenograft after early and sequential smaller excisions would lead to a better wound bed with fewer failed grafts, a smaller donor site, and possibly also a shorter duration of stay in hospital. We carried out a case control study with retrospective analysis from our National Burn Centre registry for the period 1997-2011. Patients who had been managed with early total excision and autograft were compared with those who had had sequential smaller excisions covered with temporary xenografts until the burn was ready for the final autograft. The sequential excision and xenograft group (n=42) required one-third fewer autografts than patients in the total excision and autograft group (n=45), who needed more than one operation (p<0.001). We could not detect any differences in duration of stay in hospital / total body surface area burned% (duration of stay/TBSA%) (2.0 and 1.8) (p=0.83). The two groups showed no major differences in terms of adjusted duration of stay, but our findings suggest that doing early, smaller, sequential excisions using a xenograft for temporary cover can result in shorter operating times, saving us the trouble of making big excisions. However, costs tended to be higher when the burns were > 25% TBSA.