Shannon S Wu1, Michael Wells2, Mona Ascha3, Radhika Duggal1, James Gatherwright4, Kyle Chepla5. 1. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. 2. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. 3. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 4. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH. 5. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
Background: Head and neck reconstruction is challenging because of the functional requirements of movement, sensation, and cosmesis of this highly visible region. This study is the first to compare Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue head and neck wounds. Methods: This retrospective review included adults who underwent wound reconstruction of the head/neck with either BTM or CCS between 2015 and 2020. Patient-level data, complications, and closure rates were compared. Results: The review identified 15 patients: 5 who received BTM and 10 who received CCS. Mean age at dermal template placement was 55 (range, 28-79) years. Race, sex, smoking status, medical comorbidities, defect size, radiation history, prior surgeries, and follow-up time were not significantly different between groups. Wound etiologies for BTM and CCS included burn (40% vs 60%), trauma (20% vs 20%), surgical wounds (20% vs 20%), and skin cancer (20% vs 0%), respectively (P = .026). Skin grafts were placed in 8 (80%) wounds after CCS placement, compared with 3 (60%) after BTM (P = .670). Template reapplication was required in 2 (40%) BTM wounds and 3 (30%) CCS wounds (P = 1.0). Infection, hematoma, and seroma were comparable between groups, although skin graft failure was higher in the CCS group at 3 (37.5%) compared with 0 for BTM (P = .506). More secondary procedures were required after CCS placement (CCS, 1.9 ± 2.2; BTM, 0.9 ± 0.8; P = .090). Definitive closure in patients not lost to follow-up occurred in 4 (100%) BTM and 6 (75%) CCS cases (P = 1.0). Conclusions: Head and neck wounds treated with BTM had comparable closure and complication rates as CCS bilayer and required fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts. These findings suggest that BTM is safe and efficacious for application in head and neck wounds and may be considered as an economical alternative.
Background: Head and neck reconstruction is challenging because of the functional requirements of movement, sensation, and cosmesis of this highly visible region. This study is the first to compare Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue head and neck wounds. Methods: This retrospective review included adults who underwent wound reconstruction of the head/neck with either BTM or CCS between 2015 and 2020. Patient-level data, complications, and closure rates were compared. Results: The review identified 15 patients: 5 who received BTM and 10 who received CCS. Mean age at dermal template placement was 55 (range, 28-79) years. Race, sex, smoking status, medical comorbidities, defect size, radiation history, prior surgeries, and follow-up time were not significantly different between groups. Wound etiologies for BTM and CCS included burn (40% vs 60%), trauma (20% vs 20%), surgical wounds (20% vs 20%), and skin cancer (20% vs 0%), respectively (P = .026). Skin grafts were placed in 8 (80%) wounds after CCS placement, compared with 3 (60%) after BTM (P = .670). Template reapplication was required in 2 (40%) BTM wounds and 3 (30%) CCS wounds (P = 1.0). Infection, hematoma, and seroma were comparable between groups, although skin graft failure was higher in the CCS group at 3 (37.5%) compared with 0 for BTM (P = .506). More secondary procedures were required after CCS placement (CCS, 1.9 ± 2.2; BTM, 0.9 ± 0.8; P = .090). Definitive closure in patients not lost to follow-up occurred in 4 (100%) BTM and 6 (75%) CCS cases (P = 1.0). Conclusions: Head and neck wounds treated with BTM had comparable closure and complication rates as CCS bilayer and required fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts. These findings suggest that BTM is safe and efficacious for application in head and neck wounds and may be considered as an economical alternative.
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: Nele Brusselaers; Ali Pirayesh; Henk Hoeksema; Cornelia D Richters; Jozef Verbelen; Hilde Beele; Stijn I Blot; Stan Monstrey Journal: J Trauma Date: 2010-02
Authors: Lisa Tatai; Tim G Moore; Raju Adhikari; François Malherbe; Ranjith Jayasekara; Ian Griffiths; Pathiraja A Gunatillake Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2007-10-03 Impact factor: 12.479