Head and Neck Wound Reconstruction Using Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix Versus Collagen-Chondroitin Silicone Bilayer.
Integra
Novosorb
biodegradable temporizing matrix
dermal substitute
head and neck
wound healing
Journal
Eplasty
ISSN: 1937-5719
Titre abrégé: Eplasty
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101316107
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
entrez:
24
8
2022
pubmed:
25
8
2022
medline:
25
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Head and neck reconstruction is challenging because of the functional requirements of movement, sensation, and cosmesis of this highly visible region. This study is the first to compare Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue head and neck wounds. This retrospective review included adults who underwent wound reconstruction of the head/neck with either BTM or CCS between 2015 and 2020. Patient-level data, complications, and closure rates were compared. The review identified 15 patients: 5 who received BTM and 10 who received CCS. Mean age at dermal template placement was 55 (range, 28-79) years. Race, sex, smoking status, medical comorbidities, defect size, radiation history, prior surgeries, and follow-up time were not significantly different between groups. Wound etiologies for BTM and CCS included burn (40% vs 60%), trauma (20% vs 20%), surgical wounds (20% vs 20%), and skin cancer (20% vs 0%), respectively ( Head and neck wounds treated with BTM had comparable closure and complication rates as CCS bilayer and required fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts. These findings suggest that BTM is safe and efficacious for application in head and neck wounds and may be considered as an economical alternative.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Head and neck reconstruction is challenging because of the functional requirements of movement, sensation, and cosmesis of this highly visible region. This study is the first to compare Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue head and neck wounds.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This retrospective review included adults who underwent wound reconstruction of the head/neck with either BTM or CCS between 2015 and 2020. Patient-level data, complications, and closure rates were compared.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The review identified 15 patients: 5 who received BTM and 10 who received CCS. Mean age at dermal template placement was 55 (range, 28-79) years. Race, sex, smoking status, medical comorbidities, defect size, radiation history, prior surgeries, and follow-up time were not significantly different between groups. Wound etiologies for BTM and CCS included burn (40% vs 60%), trauma (20% vs 20%), surgical wounds (20% vs 20%), and skin cancer (20% vs 0%), respectively (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Head and neck wounds treated with BTM had comparable closure and complication rates as CCS bilayer and required fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts. These findings suggest that BTM is safe and efficacious for application in head and neck wounds and may be considered as an economical alternative.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e31Informations de copyright
© 2022, HMP Global. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited. Content may not be reproduced in any form without written permission. Rights, Permission, Reprint, and Translation information is available at www.hmpglobal.com.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures: KC and JC are paid consultants for Polynovo Biomaterials but were not involved in data collection or analysis. None of the other authors have significant conflicts of interest with any companies or organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article.
Références
Arch Plast Surg. 2016 May;43(3):265-71
pubmed: 27218025
J Burn Care Rehabil. 2002 Sep-Oct;23(5):311-7
pubmed: 12352131
Burns. 2016 Aug;42(5):1088-1096
pubmed: 27222383
Biomaterials. 2007 Dec;28(36):5407-17
pubmed: 17915310
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 Dec;126(12):1467-72
pubmed: 11115284
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017 Jul;99(6):432-438
pubmed: 28560888
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Dec;134(12):1324-7
pubmed: 19075130
Eplasty. 2015 Jun 26;15:e27
pubmed: 26171099
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Jul 12;9(7):e3674
pubmed: 34262837
J Trauma. 2010 Feb;68(2):490-501
pubmed: 20154563
Microsurgery. 2005;25(7):538-42; discussion 542
pubmed: 16184523
J Craniofac Surg. 2017 Mar;28(2):e137-e141
pubmed: 28045815
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Aug;108(2):378-84: discussion 385
pubmed: 11496178
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Oct 24;4(10):e1074
pubmed: 27826471
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Mar;63(3):404-9
pubmed: 19254877
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016 Dec;40(6):901-907
pubmed: 27699461
J Burn Care Rehabil. 2003 Jan-Feb;24(1):42-8
pubmed: 12543990
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Mar 14;48(1):13
pubmed: 30871637
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Apr 02;7(4):e2110
pubmed: 31321161
J Burn Care Res. 2009 Jul-Aug;30(4):717-28
pubmed: 19506497