Outcome comparison of the most commonly employed wound coverage techniques in patients with massive burns ≥50% TBSA - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Allograft Autograft Burn CEA Meek Meta-analysis

Journal

Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries
ISSN: 1879-1409
Titre abrégé: Burns
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8913178

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 30 06 2023
revised: 24 06 2024
accepted: 10 07 2024
medline: 26 9 2024
pubmed: 26 9 2024
entrez: 25 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Early wound coverage is one of the most essential factors influencing the survival of extensively burned patients, especially those with a total body surface area (TBSA) burned greater than 50 %. In patients with limited donor sites available for autografting, techniques such as the Meek micrograft procedure or cultured epidermal allografts (CEA) have proven to be viable alternatives. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analyzed the outcomes of different wound coverage techniques in patients with massive burn injuries ≥ 50 % TBSA in the past 17 years. The EMBASE, PUBMED, Google Scholar and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to December 2022 for studies investigating major burn reconstruction (>50 % TBSA) with the use of one of: a) autografts, b) allografts, c) cell-based therapies, and d) Meek micrografting. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The outcomes evaluated were mortality, length of hospital stay, graft take and number of operations performed. Following a two-stage review process, 30 studies with 1369 patients were identified for analysis. Methods of coverage comprised the original autografting, and the newer Meek micrografting, CEA autografting, and allografting. Pooled mean age of the entire cohort was 32.5 years ( ± SE 3.6) with mean burn size of 66.1 % ( ± 2.5). After pooling the data, advantages in terms of mortality rate, length of stay, graft take and number of required surgeries were seen for the Meek and CEA groups. Mortality was highest in patients treated with autografts (50 %) and lowest with cell-based therapy (11 %). Length of stay was longest with cell-based therapy (91 ± 16 days) and shortest with Meek micrografting (50 ± 24 days). Graft take was highest with autografts (96 ± 2 %) and lowest with cell-based therapy (72 ± 9 %). Average number of operations was highest with cell-based therapy (9 ± 4) and lowest with Meek micrografting (4 ± 2). Comparison of the four techniques highlighted differences in terms of all outcomes assessed, and each technique was associated with different advantages. Interestingly autografting, the option with the highest graft take rate, was also associated with the highest mortality. This study not only serves to provide the first comparison of the most commonly used techniques in major burn reconstruction, but also highlights the need for prospective studies that directly compare the efficacy of the different techniques to ultimately establish whether a true superior option exists.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39322501
pii: S0305-4179(24)00210-9
doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2024.07.014
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Burns Injuries. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The authors declare that they have not received funding in any form for this work.

Auteurs

Valentin Haug (V)

Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany; Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Christian Tapking (C)

Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Adriana C Panayi (AC)

Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany; Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Anamika Veeramani (A)

Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Samuel Knoedler (S)

Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Bianief Tchiloemba (B)

Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada.

Obada Abdulrazzak (O)

Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Nikita Kadakia (N)

Department of Plastic Surgery, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA.

Bastian Bonaventura (B)

Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Derek Culnan (D)

JMS Burn and Reconstructive Center at Merit Health Central, Jackson, MS, USA.

Ulrich Kneser (U)

Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Gabriel Hundeshagen (G)

Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany. Electronic address: gabriel.hundeshagen@bgu-ludwigshafen.de.

Classifications MeSH