OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and biomechanical features of scars resulting from the treatment of burn contractures using different acellular dermal matrices (ADM). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Extensive burns often lead to severe sequelae, such as skin contractures, that can be treated using ADM to improve the quality of these scars. METHODS: A prospective, randomized and controlled clinical trial was performed including patients with burn contractures at least one-year post-burn, treated using split-thickness skin graft (STSG). These patients were randomized into four groups: Control (received only STSG without ADM), Integra (ADM + STSG), Matriderm (ADM + STSG), and Pelnac (ADM + STSG). Exclusion criteria were loss of follow-up and graft integration failure. The evaluation was performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), the durometer, and the cutometer in areas of normal skin, hypertrophic scar, and surgical scar, at least one year after the surgery. RESULTS: In the VSS, durometer, and cutometer evaluation, there was no difference in the comparison of surgical scars among groups. Analyzing each group, with an intraindividual evaluation comparing areas of normal skin with surgical scars, the results suggested a possibility of a surgical scar hardness closer to normal skin for Integra and Matriderm groups measured with the durometer. In the cutometer evaluation, surgical scars were not comparable to areas of normal skin. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is no difference in the quality of scar assessed through the analysis of clinical and biomechanical features comparing acellular dermal matrices (Integra, Matriderm, and Pelnac) and only split-thickness skin graft without a dermal matrix.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and biomechanical features of scars resulting from the treatment of burn contractures using different acellular dermal matrices (ADM). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Extensive burns often lead to severe sequelae, such as skin contractures, that can be treated using ADM to improve the quality of these scars. METHODS: A prospective, randomized and controlled clinical trial was performed including patients with burn contractures at least one-year post-burn, treated using split-thickness skin graft (STSG). These patients were randomized into four groups: Control (received only STSG without ADM), Integra (ADM + STSG), Matriderm (ADM + STSG), and Pelnac (ADM + STSG). Exclusion criteria were loss of follow-up and graft integration failure. The evaluation was performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), the durometer, and the cutometer in areas of normal skin, hypertrophic scar, and surgical scar, at least one year after the surgery. RESULTS: In the VSS, durometer, and cutometer evaluation, there was no difference in the comparison of surgical scars among groups. Analyzing each group, with an intraindividual evaluation comparing areas of normal skin with surgical scars, the results suggested a possibility of a surgical scar hardness closer to normal skin for Integra and Matriderm groups measured with the durometer. In the cutometer evaluation, surgical scars were not comparable to areas of normal skin. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is no difference in the quality of scar assessed through the analysis of clinical and biomechanical features comparing acellular dermal matrices (Integra, Matriderm, and Pelnac) and only split-thickness skin graft without a dermal matrix.