Comparison of Cultured Keratinocyte Allograft versus Alloplastic Material in Management of Burn Injury.
- Author:
Dae Hyun KIM
1
;
Kyung Sik KIM
;
Jun CHOI
;
Seung Hong KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Myong-Ji Hospital, Goyang, Korea. kskimps@mjh.or.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Burn;
Keratinocyte;
Suprathel(R)
- MeSH:
Allografts*;
Biological Dressings;
Burns*;
Cicatrix;
Humans;
Keratinocytes*;
Skin;
Tissue Donors;
Transplants;
Wounds and Injuries
- From:Journal of Korean Burn Society
2014;17(2):73-80
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: In the past days, the majority of 2nd degree burns were treated conservatively, and deep 2nd degree burns were usually covered by skin grafts. However, conservative treatment spends a long time in complete healing and accompanies severe pain and discomfort. Additionally, covering the wound with skin graft causes recipient site scarring and donor site morbidity. Since keratinocyte graft was introduced, nowadays it is widely used in burn wound. These treatment methods are proved to be clinically successful by many clinical and experimental studies. However, there are several disadvantages such as inconvenient using methods and limited usage in several cases. For that reason, at 2004, alloplastic material was first introduced to come over these problems of keratinocyte graft. There had been no precious reports comparing theses two methods, so we planned to focus on differences of two methods in our institute. METHODS: From March 2013 to september 2014, among the 47 patients with burn wound (2nd degree - partial 3rd degree) underwent biologic dressing with cultured keratinocyte allograft (Kaloderm(R) (Tegoscience, Korea)) alloplastic material (Suprathel(R) (Polymedics Innovations GmbH, Germany). The outcomes were assessed using time for epithelization, TBSA (%), Vancouver Scar Scale and complication. RESULTS: All burn wounds were completely epithelized without any complication. The average time for epithelization was 13.4/13.4 days. CONCLUSION: The result of this study suggests that Kaloderm(R) and Suprathel(R) did not show significant difference. Therefore, Suprathel(R) may be considered as an alternative choice for treating 2nd and 3rd degree burns in some clinical settings.
