This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (35)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Dermatologic Disorders  • Transplantation, Other  • Wound Healing  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Comparison of a Living Skin Equivalent, Autograft, and Occlusive Dressing in Human Donor Sites

Michelle Muhart, MD; Susan McFalls, MD; Robert S. Kirsner, MD; George W. Elgart, MD; Francisco Kerdel, MD; Michael L. Sabolinski, MD; Janet Hardin-Young, PhD; William H. Eaglstein, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1999;135:913-918.

Objective  To compare the behavior of a tissue-engineered living skin equivalent (LSE) with an autograft in acute donor site wounds.

Design  Paired-comparison, randomized control trial.

Setting  A university dermatology service.

Patients  Three donor sites were created on the anterior thigh of each of 20 patients requiring split-thickness skin grafts.

Intervention  For each patient, the donor sites were randomly assigned to be treated with meshed LSE, meshed autograft, or a polyurethane film (PUF) occlusive dressing. Blood and biopsy samples were taken for immunologic and histological studies.

Main Outcome Measures  Toxic effects or clinically apparent rejection, humoral and cellular immune responses, clinical take, healing time, pain, and 1-month histological appearance.

Results  There was no toxic effect or clinically apparent rejection of LSE. Results of humoral and cellular studies were unchanged from baseline. The average time to healing for LSE with clinical take was 7.3 days (SD,±0.8 days); for autograft, 7.6 days (SD,±1.1 days); and for PUF, 9.5 days (SD,±1.8 days). The difference between LSE or autograft and PUF was statistically significant at the .001 level. Pain was experienced by 1 patient, no patients, and 10 patients at the LSE, autograft, and PUF sites, respectively. Histologically, LSE had the thickest epidermis (P=.02), PUF had the greatest degree of fibrosis (P=.02), and autograft had the least degree of increased inflammation (P=.004) and vascularity (P=.01).

Conclusions  In acute donor site wounds, LSE appeared to clinically take and to be a safe and usable form of tissue therapy.

From the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Fla (Drs Muhart, McFalls, Kirsner, Elgart, Kerdel, and Eaglstein); and Organogenesis, Inc, Canton, Mass (Drs Sabolinski and Hardin-Young).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Apligraf in the Treatment of Neuropathic Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Edmonds and European and Australian Apligraf Diabetic Foot Ulc
INT J LOW EXTREM WOUNDS 2009;8:11-18.
ABSTRACT  

Wound Healing
Kirsner
Arch Dermatol 2007;143:1318-1319.
FULL TEXT  

The Longevity of a Bilayered Skin Substitute After Application to Venous Ulcers
Phillips et al.
Arch Dermatol 2002;138:1079-1081.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Healing of Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Pressure Ulcers With Human Skin Equivalent: A New Paradigm in Wound Healing
Brem et al.
Arch Surg 2000;135:627-634.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Controlled Trial, LSE vs Killed LSE, Is Needed
Epstein et al.
Arch Dermatol 2000;136:555-556.
FULL TEXT  

Tissue-Engineered Skin: An Alternative to Split-Thickness Skin Grafts?
Phillips
Arch Dermatol 1999;135:977-978.
FULL TEXT