This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

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

Muhart el al,¹ in their August ARCHIVES study on living skin equivalent (LSE) treatment of split-thickness donor sites, established that LSE is a well-tolerated, albeit expensive ($140 per square inch), wound dressing. That is all. Their speculation that "LSE behaves like autograft" and might provide an "off the shelf" substitute for a skin graft¹ ignores fundamental differences in healing between partial- and full-thickness skin wounds. Partial-thickness wounds heal rapidly as a result of reepithelization from adnexal tissue in the wound base. Full-thickness wounds heal slowly and do not reepithelize from their base; that is why skin grafts are employed as cover.

The healing rate of partial-thickness wounds varies with the dressing as the authors point out: "studies of different dressing in the treatment of donor sites have shown a wide range of healing times." The fact that the LSE-treated wounds healed 2 days faster than the control synthetic dressing (Tegaderm; . . . [Full Text of this Article]