Skin Stretching for Burn Scar Excision - A Critically Appraised Topic

Cell-free fat extract promotes tissue regeneration in a tissue expansion model

Background

Tissue expansion techniques play an important role in plastic surgery. How to improve the quality of the expanded skin and shorten the expansion period are still worth investigating. Our previous studies found that a cell-free fat extract (CEFFE) possessed pro-angiogenic and pro-proliferative activities. However, the role of CEFFE on tissue expansion has remained unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CEFFE on tissue expansion.

Methods

A rat tissue expansion model was used. Animals were treated with CEFFE by subcutaneous injection. After 4 weeks of tissue expansion, the skin necrosis and retraction rates were evaluated, the thicknesses of the epidermis and dermis were determined by histological analyses, blood vessel density was measured by anti-CD31 staining, cell proliferation was assessed by proliferating cell nuclear antigen staining, and the expression of specific proteins was evaluated by western blot analyses. In addition, the effects of CEFFE on the proliferation and cell cycle of cultured HaCaT cells were evaluated in vitro.

Results

CEFFE treatment significantly decreased the necrosis rate and retraction of the expanded skin. The thickness of the epidermal and dermal layers was higher in CEFFE-treated compared to untreated skin. The density of blood vessels and cell proliferation in the epidermis of the expanded skin was improved by CEFFE treatment. In addition, CEFFE treatment significantly increased the expression of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, collagen type 1, and collagen type 3. CEFFE also increased the proliferation of HaCaT cells in culture.

Conclusions

CEFFE improves the quality of the expanded skin by promoting angiogenesis and cell proliferation. It could be potentially used clinically for augmenting tissue expansion.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.