Epidermal skin grafting in patients with complex wounds: a case series

Biopolymer-based Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications

Tissue engineering is governed by the use of cells and polymers. The cells may be accounted for the type of tissue to be targeted, while polymers may vary from natural to synthetic. The natural polymers have advantages such as non-immunogenic and complex structures that help in the formation of bonds in comparison to the synthetic ones. Various targeted drug delivery systems have been prepared using polymers and cells, such as nanoparticles, hydrogels, nanofibers, and microspheres. The design of scaffolds depends on the negative impact of material used on the human body and they have been prepared using surface modification technique or neo material synthesis. The dermal substitutes are a distinctive array that aims at the replacement of skin parts either through grafting or some other means. This review focuses on biomaterials for their use in tissue engineering. This article shall provide the bird's eye view of the scaffolds and dermal substitutes, which are naturally derived.

Recent Trends in Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Bioinks for 3D Printing: An Updated Review

The promise of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering is founded on the ability to regenerate diseased or damaged tissues and organs into functional tissues and organs or the creation of new tissues and organs altogether. In theory, damaged and diseased tissues and organs can be regenerated or created using different configurations and combinations of extracellular matrix (ECM), cells, and inductive biomolecules. Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering can allow the improvement of patients' quality of life through availing novel treatment options. The coupling of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering with 3D printing, big data, and computational algorithms is revolutionizing the treatment of patients in a huge way. 3D bioprinting allows the proper placement of cells and ECMs, allowing the recapitulation of native microenvironments of tissues and organs. 3D bioprinting utilizes different bioinks made up of different formulations of ECM/biomaterials, biomolecules, and even cells. The choice of the bioink used during 3D bioprinting is very important as properties such as printability, compatibility, and physical strength influence the final construct printed. The extracellular matrix (ECM) provides both physical and mechanical microenvironment needed by cells to survive and proliferate. Decellularized ECM bioink contains biochemical cues from the original native ECM and also the right proportions of ECM proteins. Different techniques and characterization methods are used to derive bioinks from several tissues and organs and to evaluate their quality. This review discusses the uses of decellularized ECM bioinks and argues that they represent the most biomimetic bioinks available. In addition, we briefly discuss some polymer-based bioinks utilized in 3D bioprinting.

Use of epidermal skin grafts in chronic wounds: a case series

In stalled, chronic wounds, more aggressive and proactive wound closure efforts are needed. We describe adjunctive use of epidermal grafting in patients with chronic wounds. Wound bed preparation consisted of surgical necrotectomy or sharp debridement, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, negative pressure wound therapy, compression therapy, platelet-rich plasma therapy and/or heparan sulphate agents. Epidermal grafts were harvested from the patient's thigh and applied to the wound. Wound and donor site healing was monitored. A total of 78 patients (average age = 64·1 ± 15·6 years) were included in the study. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47·4%), venous insufficiency (37·2%) and obesity (28·2%). Average wound duration was 13·2 months (range: 0·3-180 months). The most common wound types were dehiscence (29·5%), radiation ulcer (24·4%) and venous ulcer (17·9%). Total time from epidermal grafting to wound closure was 10·0 ± 7·3 weeks. Of the 78 wounds, 66 (84·6%) reached full wound closure (49 < 3 months, 16 > 3 months, 1 without time data). Of 78 wounds, 10 (12·8%) underwent partial wound healing, while 2 wounds (2/78; 2·6%) remained unhealed. These results suggest that wound surface reduction can be achieved by proactive early application of biological therapies and epidermal skin grafts, which may help decrease time to wound healing.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of epidermal grafting for wound healing

Autologous skin grafting is an important method for wound coverage; however, it is an invasive procedure and can cause donor site morbidity. Epidermal grafting (EG) enables epidermal transfer to wounds with minimal donor site morbidity. However, data to date have been heterogeneous. This study aims to synthesise the current evidence on EG for wound healing to establish the efficacy of this surgical technique. A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases was conducted. The endpoints assessed were proportion of wounds healed and mean wound-healing time. This systematic review was conducted and reported according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. We identified 1568 articles, of which seven articles were included in this review - a total of 209 wounds in 190 patients. The mean wound duration was 17·06 weeks (95% CI 8·57-25·55). Of these, 71·5% (95% CI 56·7-84·2) of the wounds achieved complete healing. Mean time for complete wound healing was 5·53 weeks (95% CI 3·18-7·88). The mean donor site healing time was 7·48 days (95% CI 4·83-10·13), with no reported donor site morbidity. The current data are small and lack level 1 evidence.

A Case Series of Complex Recalcitrant Wounds Treated with Epidermal Grafts Harvested from an Automated Device

Introduction: Epidermal grafting has several advantages over full-thickness or split-thickness grafts in the treatment of complex non-healing wounds. These include the low risk of donor site complications, minimal patient discomfort, and abstention from the operating room. Traditionally, the lack of reliable epidermal harvesting techniques has limited its clinical utilization. The development of an automated suction blister epidermal graft (SBEG) harvesting device may facilitate clinical utilization of this technique. The authors present a case series of multimorbid patients who were poor surgical candidates and were treated with this technique.

Methods: A retrospective review of all patients treated with CelluTome™​ Epidermal Harvesting System (KCI, an Acelity company, San Antonio, TX) prior to May 2016 at our institution was conducted.

Results: A total of 12 patients underwent 14 epidermal grafting procedures. Multiple comorbidities were identified, including smoking (33%), immunosuppression by immunotherapy or steroids (25%), chronic venous insufficiency (25%), diabetes mellitus (25%), malignancy (25%), polysubstance abuse (17%), HIV/AIDS (17%), and peripheral artery disease (8%). Among the two acute wounds (≤ 3 months) and 10 chronic wounds, the average wound size was 49.1 cm² (± 77.6 cm²) and the median wound duration was 5.7 months (interquartile range: 4.1 - 15.8 months) before SBEG was attempted. These complex wounds had failed prior therapies, such as local wound care (100%), incision and drainage (58%), vacuum-assisted closure (33%), split-thickness skin graft (16%), and hyperbaric oxygen (8%). Following the procedure, all donor sites healed within one week. Three patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining nine patients, four patients had complete resolution of their wounds at a median follow-up of 13.1 weeks (interquartile range: 6.8-17.3 weeks). Among those with partial resolutions, the average wound size was 4.2 cm² (± 2.1 cm²) with an average wound reduction of 79% (± 23%). No donor or recipient site complications were observed.

Conclusions: The automated SBEG harvesting device is an effective and safe option for treating complex non-healing wounds in multimorbid patients who may be poor surgical candidates. This procedure demonstrates minimal contraindications to its use and donor or recipient site complications.