André O Paggiaro1, Renata Bastianelli2, Viviane F Carvalho2, Cesar Isaac3, Rolf Gemperli3. 1. Nursing Post Graduation, Universidade Guarulhos, 229, Praça Tereza Cristina, Guarulhos, São Paulo 07023-070, Brazil. Electronic address: andrepaggiaro@hc.fm.usp.br. 2. Nursing Post Graduation, Universidade Guarulhos, 229, Praça Tereza Cristina, Guarulhos, São Paulo 07023-070, Brazil. 3. Plastic Surgery Division, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 255, Rua Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar, São Paulo 05403-000, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allograft skin (AS) transplantation has been considered to be the gold standard for replacing tissue damage, following burns. However, increasingly new biosynthetic skin substitutes are being developed as alternatives. The objective of this systematic review is to compare AS with other skin substitutes, which have been used in the treatment of burns. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial (RCT) and nonrandomized clinical trial (NRCT) studies comparing AS to any other skin substitute in the treatment of burns were extracted from PubMed/Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. For the risk of bias analysis, the Cochrane bias risk handbook was used for RCT studies and ROBINS-1 was used for NRCT studies. Outcomes such as healing, self-grafting, scar appearance, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Twelve RCT and six NRCT were selected, with most of the methodologies presenting a high risk of bias. Based on the outcomes of the studies, it was not possible to detect any advantages for using AS, as opposed to other skin substitutes. In the meta-analysis, only two outcomes could be evaluated: healing and graft take percentage; however, no significant differences were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Because of the poor quality of the primary studies, it was not possible to identify differences in the results that compared the use of AS with other substitutes in the treatment of patients with burns. These results support the fact that surgeons primarily base the choice of skin substitute on clinical experience and cost, at least when treating burns.
BACKGROUND: Allograft skin (AS) transplantation has been considered to be the gold standard for replacing tissue damage, following burns. However, increasingly new biosynthetic skin substitutes are being developed as alternatives. The objective of this systematic review is to compare AS with other skin substitutes, which have been used in the treatment of burns. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial (RCT) and nonrandomized clinical trial (NRCT) studies comparing AS to any other skin substitute in the treatment of burns were extracted from PubMed/Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. For the risk of bias analysis, the Cochrane bias risk handbook was used for RCT studies and ROBINS-1 was used for NRCT studies. Outcomes such as healing, self-grafting, scar appearance, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Twelve RCT and six NRCT were selected, with most of the methodologies presenting a high risk of bias. Based on the outcomes of the studies, it was not possible to detect any advantages for using AS, as opposed to other skin substitutes. In the meta-analysis, only two outcomes could be evaluated: healing and graft take percentage; however, no significant differences were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Because of the poor quality of the primary studies, it was not possible to identify differences in the results that compared the use of AS with other substitutes in the treatment of patients with burns. These results support the fact that surgeons primarily base the choice of skin substitute on clinical experience and cost, at least when treating burns.