Katie E Hicks1, Minh Nq Huynh2, Marc Jeschke3, Claudia Malic4. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Rd, K1H 8M5 Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: khick086@uottawa.ca. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Rd, K1H 8M5 Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: mhuyn095@uottawa.ca. 3. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room D704, M4N3M5 Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: marc.jeschke@sunnybrook.ca. 4. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, K1H 8L1 Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: cmalic@cheo.on.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermal regenerative matrices (DRMs) have been used for several decades in the treatment of acute and reconstructive burn injury. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess clinical outcomes and safety profile of DRMs in full-thickness burn injury. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were performed from 1988 to 2017. Two independent reviewers completed preliminary and full-text screening of all articles. English-language articles reporting on DRM use in patients with full-thickness burn injury were included. RESULTS: Literature search generated 914 unique articles. Following screening, 203 articles were assessed for eligibility, and 72 met inclusion criteria for analysis. DRM was applied to1084 patients (74% acute burns, 26% burn reconstruction). Of the twelve studies that described changes in ROM, significant improvement was observed in 95% of reconstructive patients. The most frequently treated reconstructive sites were the neck, hand/wrist, lower extremity, and axilla. Vancouver scar scale was used in eight studies and indicated a significant improvement in the scar quality with DRM. The overall complication rate was 13%, most commonly infection, graft loss, hematoma formation, and contracture. CONCLUSIONS: Although variability in functional and cosmetic outcomes was observed, DRM demonstrates improvements in ROM and scar appearance without objective regression. Essential demographic data were lacking in many studies, highlighting the need for future standardization of reporting outcomes in burns following application of dermal substitutes.
BACKGROUND: Dermal regenerative matrices (DRMs) have been used for several decades in the treatment of acute and reconstructive burn injury. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess clinical outcomes and safety profile of DRMs in full-thickness burn injury. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were performed from 1988 to 2017. Two independent reviewers completed preliminary and full-text screening of all articles. English-language articles reporting on DRM use in patients with full-thickness burn injury were included. RESULTS: Literature search generated 914 unique articles. Following screening, 203 articles were assessed for eligibility, and 72 met inclusion criteria for analysis. DRM was applied to1084 patients (74% acute burns, 26% burn reconstruction). Of the twelve studies that described changes in ROM, significant improvement was observed in 95% of reconstructive patients. The most frequently treated reconstructive sites were the neck, hand/wrist, lower extremity, and axilla. Vancouver scar scale was used in eight studies and indicated a significant improvement in the scar quality with DRM. The overall complication rate was 13%, most commonly infection, graft loss, hematoma formation, and contracture. CONCLUSIONS: Although variability in functional and cosmetic outcomes was observed, DRM demonstrates improvements in ROM and scar appearance without objective regression. Essential demographic data were lacking in many studies, highlighting the need for future standardization of reporting outcomes in burns following application of dermal substitutes.
Authors: Colleen M Ryan; David A Schoenfeld; Maryanne Malloy; John T Schulz; Robert L Sheridan; Ronald G Tompkins Journal: J Burn Care Rehabil Date: 2002 Sep-Oct
Authors: D Heimbach; A Luterman; J Burke; A Cram; D Herndon; J Hunt; M Jordan; W McManus; L Solem; G Warden Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1988-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Daniel Hammer; Juan L Rendon; Jennifer Sabino; Kerry Latham; Mark E Fleming; Ian L Valerio Journal: J Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 3.963
Authors: Alen Palackic; Robert P Duggan; Matthew S Campbell; Elliot Walters; Ludwik K Branski; Amina El Ayadi; Steven E Wolf Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.195
Authors: Marc G Jeschke; Margriet E van Baar; Mashkoor A Choudhry; Kevin K Chung; Nicole S Gibran; Sarvesh Logsetty Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Marcin Gierek; Wojciech Łabuś; Anna Słaboń; Karolina Ziółkowska; Gabriela Ochała-Gierek; Diana Kitala; Karol Szyluk; Paweł Niemiec Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2022-08-14
Authors: Giuseppe Cottone; Francesco Amendola; Carlo Strada; Maria Chiara Bagnato; Roberto Brambilla; Francesco De Francesco; Luca Vaienti Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 2.430