This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (6)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Dermatology  • Dermatologic Disorders  • Transplantation  • Transplantation, Other  • Wound Healing  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

An Alternative to Split-Thickness Skin Grafts?

Arch Dermatol. 1999;135:977-978.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

THE RESULTS of decades of research are now coming to fruition with the commercial availability of skin substitutes in this country and throughout the world. In 1998, a human skin equivalent (HSE) (Apligraf; Organogenesis Inc, Canton, Mass) consisting of a bilayered skin construct of type 1 bovine collagen and live allogeneic human skin fibroblasts and keratinocytes was approved in the United States for the treatment of venous ulcers based on the data from a multicenter trial.¹

In this issue of the ARCHIVES, Muhart et al² report the findings of a study in which split-thickness skin graft donor sites were used as a wound model to compare HSE with autografts or occlusive dressings. Healing time, pain relief, and cosmetic outcomes were similar in sites treated with living skin equivalent and autografts, while sites treated with a polyurethane film took 2 days longer to heal and had a poorer cosmetic outcome. A . . . [Full Text of this Article]

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

RELATED ARTICLE

Behavior of Tissue-Engineered Skin: A Comparison of a Living Skin Equivalent, Autograft, and Occlusive Dressing in Human Donor Sites
Michelle Muhart, Susan McFalls, Robert S. Kirsner, George W. Elgart, Francisco Kerdel, Michael L. Sabolinski, Janet Hardin-Young, and William H. Eaglstein
Arch Dermatol. 1999;135(8):913-918.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT