Acellular Dermal Matrix to Treat Full Thickness Skin Defects: Follow-Up Subjective and Objective Skin Quality Assessments.
10.7181/acfs.2014.15.1.14
- Author:
Jae Yeon PARK
1
;
Tae Geun LEE
;
Ji Ye KIM
;
Myung Chul LEE
;
Yoon Kyu CHUNG
;
Won Jai LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. pswjlee@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Acellular dermis;
Skin graft;
Quality evaluation
- MeSH:
Acellular Dermis*;
Cicatrix;
Elasticity;
Follow-Up Studies*;
Graft Survival;
Humans;
Medical Records;
Retrospective Studies;
Skin*;
Transplants
- From:Archives of Craniofacial Surgery
2014;15(1):14-21
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: There are several options for replacement of the dermal layer in full-thickness skin defects. In this study, we present the surgical outcomes of reconstruction using acellular dermal substitutes by means of objective and subjective scar assessment tools. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 78 patients who had undergone autologous split-thickness skin graft with or without concomitant acellular dermal matrix (CGDerm or AlloDerm) graft. We examined graft survival rate and evaluated postoperative functional skin values. Individual comparisons were performed between the area of skin graft and the surrounding normal skin. Nine months after surgery, we compared the skin qualities of CGDerm graft group (n=25), AlloDerm graft group (n=8) with skin graft only group (n=23) each other using the objective and subjective measurements. RESULTS: The average of graft survival rate was 93% for CGDerm group, 92% for AlloDerm group and 86% for skin graft only group. Comparing CGDerm grafted skin to the surrounding normal skin, mean elasticity, hydration, and skin barrier values were 87%, 86%, and 82%, respectively. AlloDerm grafted skin values were 84%, 85%, and 84%, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the CGDerm and AlloDerm groups with regard to graft survival rate and skin functional analysis values. However, both groups showed more improvement of skin quality than skin graft only group. CONCLUSION: The new dermal substitute (CGDerm) demonstrated comparable results with regard to elasticity, humidification, and skin barrier effect when compared with conventional dermal substitute (AlloDerm).
