From skin allograft coverage to allograft–micrograft sandwich method: A retrospective review of severe burn patients who received conjunctive application of cultured epithelial autografts

• Published in: Burns Vol. 44; no. 5; pp. 1302 - 1307
• Main Authors: Chua, Alvin Wen Choong, Khoo, Yik Cheong, Truong, Thi Thu Ha, Woo, Evan, Tan, Bien Keem, Chong, Si Jack
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Ltd 01.08.2018
• Subjects: Allografts; CEA; Cultured epithelial autografts; Cuono’s method; Micrografting; Micrografting; Allografts; Cuono’s method; CEA; Cultured epithelial autografts
• ISSN: 0305-4179; 1879-1409
• DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.01.021

•Micrografting combined with CEA was compared to Cuono’s/split thickness skin grafting method in retrospective review.•Micrografting/CEA method was found to treat more severe burn patients without compromise in clinical outcomes.•Area of allograft use was reduced by almost half using the micrografting/CEA method. A 12-year retrospective review of severe burn patients who received cultured epithelial autografts (CEA) at the Singapore General Hospital Burns Centre from January 2005 to December 2016 was carried out. During this period, two different surgical modalities were employed to manage these burn injuries. In the earlier period, following early excision of the burn wounds, exposed surfaces were covered with a combination of split thickness skin autografts (STSG) and allografts. Surfaces covered with skin allografts were subsequently debrided of the allo-epidermis in about 3 weeks later, exposing the allodermis with granulating tissues for grafting of CEA; a technique known as the Cuono’s method. In the later period, allograft–autologous micrograft sandwich technique was used to graft on the early excised burns with subsequent CEA grafting. The former and latter groups represented by STSG/C (n=10) and M/CEA (n=14) respectively, were compared in terms of clinical profiles, outcomes, allograft/CEA usage and total graft cost. No significant differences were found based on mean age and presence of inhalation burns between the two treatment methods However, percentage total body surface area (TBSA) and Revised Baux Score were significantly higher (p<0.05) in the M/CEA group compared to the STSG/C group. Differences in clinical outcomes of mortality and length of hospital stay between the 2 groups were statistically insignificant. The average area amount of skin allografts used per patient in the M/CEA group was significantly lower compared to the STSG/C method group which contributed to lower total average cost of grafts used per % TBSA in the M/CEA method group. This might be attributed to the presence of micrografts which seemed to improve stabilization of the wound bed resulting in less operating procedures and improving CEA take. To conclude, the M/CEA method introduced was able to treat more severe burn patients at lower graft costs without compromising critical clinical outcomes significantly.