Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current State of Selected Wound Regeneration Templates and Temporary Covers

  • Burns (N Namias, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Trauma Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To review four wound coverage options—xenografts, allografts, Integra®, and MatriStem™—and outline considerations to help providers select the appropriate cover.

Recent Findings

Xenografts were the first skin substitutes used to cover wounds. They are inexpensive but inherently less similar to native host skin than cadaveric allografts, the current gold standard for temporary wound coverage. Integra® is an established dermal matrix that provides permanent coverage by naturally integrating into the wound to create a neo-dermis. MatriStem™ urinary bladder matrices are recently available products designed to promote wound healing. They have shown promising, albeit limited, results in clinical studies.

Summary

Each reviewed coverage option presents its own risk-benefit profile. The optimal choice for an individual patient depends on various wound- and patient-related factors that should be evaluated collectively. Adherence to wound management principles is paramount regardless of the coverage option. This review aims to facilitate the selection process for providers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Nyame TT, Chiang HA, Orgill DP. Clinical applications of skin substitutes. Surg Clin North Am. 2014;94(4):839–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Janis JE, Kwon RK, Attinger CE. The new reconstructive ladder: modifications to the traditional model. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(Suppl 1):205S–12S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shores TJ, Gabriel TA, Gupta TS. Skin substitutes and alternatives: a review. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007;20(9):493–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Veen VC, van der Wal MB, van Leeuwen MC, Ulrich MM, Middelkoop E. Biological background of dermal substitutes. Burns. 2010;36(3):305–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Banes AJ, Compton DW, Bornhoeft J, Hicks H, Link GW, Bevin AG, et al. Biologic, biosynthetic, and synthetic dressings as temporary wound covers: a biochemical comparison. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1986;7(2):96–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones I, Currie L, Martin R. A guide to biological skin substitutes. Br J Plast Surg. 2002;55(3):185–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yildirimer L, Thanh NT, Seifalian AM. Skin regeneration scaffolds: a multimodal bottom-up approach. Trends Biotechnol. 2012;30(12):638–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Simman R. Wound closure and the reconstructive ladder in plastic surgery. J Am Col Certif Wound Spec. 2009;1(1):6–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar P. Classification of skin substitutes. Burns. 2008;34(1):148–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. •• Davison-Kotler E, Sharma V, Kang NV, García-Gareta E. A universal classification system of skin substitutes inspired by factorial design. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2018;24(4):279–88 (This paper provides the most recently-proposed classification system for and skin substitutes nearly a decade following the work of Kumar and Ferreira et al.).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Shahrokhi S, Arno A, Jeschke MG. The use of dermal substitutes in burn surgery: acute phase. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22(1):14–22 (The above reference provides a detailed review of numerous dermal substitutes and their classifications. It also describes the functional requirements of dermal substitutes.).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferreira MC, Paggiaro AO, Isaac C, Neto NT, dos Santos GB. Skin substitutes: current concepts and a new classification system. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2011;26(4):696–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chua AW, Khoo YC, Tan BK, Tan KC, Foo CL, Chong SJ. Skin tissue engineering advances in severe burns: review and therapeutic applications. Burns Trauma. 2016;4:3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Austin RE, Merchant N, Shahrokhi S, Jeschke MG. A comparison of Biobrane™ and cadaveric allograft for temporizing the acute burn wound: cost and procedural time. Burns. 2015;41(4):749–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chiu T, Burd A. “Xenograft” dressing in the treatment of burns. Clin Dermatol. 2005;23(4):419–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bromberg BE, Song IC, Mohn MP. The use of pig skin as a temporary biological dressing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1965;36:80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarto Piccolo N, Sarto Piccolo M, Sarto Piccolo MT. The use of frogskin as a biological dressing for temporary cover of burn wounds. In: Eisenmann-Klein M, Neuhann-Lorenz C, editors. Innovations in plastic and aesthetic surgery. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2008. p. 129–37.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Mulier KE, Nguyen AH, Delaney JP, Marquez S. Comparison of Permacol™ and Strattice™ for the repair of abdominal wall defects. Hernia. 2011;15(3):315–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pruitt BA, Levine NS. Characteristics and uses of biologic dressings and skin substitutes. Arch Surg. 1984;119(3):312–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Troy J, Karlnoski R, Downes K, Brown KS, Cruse CW, Smith DJ, et al. The use of EZ Derm® in partial-thickness burns: an institutional review of 157 patients. Eplasty. 2013;13:e14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Burkey B, Davis W, Glat PM. Porcine xenograft treatment of superficial partial-thickness burns in paediatric patients. J Wound Care. 2016;25(2):S10–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pitkin L, Rimmer J, Lo S, Hosni A. Aesthetic augmentation rhinoplasty with Permacol: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol. 2008;33(6):615–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chang C, Kong WK. Clinical effectiveness and safety of collagen sheet for dorsal augmentation in rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(5):1852–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Saray A. Porcine dermal collagen (Permacol) for facial contour augmentation: preliminary report. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003;27(5):368–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheung EV, Silverio L, Sperling JW. Strategies in biologic augmentation of rotator cuff repair: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1476–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Doussot A, Abo-Alhassan F, Derbal S, Fournel I, Kasereka-Kisenge F, Codjia T, et al. Indications and outcomes of a cross-linked porcine dermal collagen mesh (Permacol) for complex abdominal wall reconstruction: a multicenter audit. World J Surg 2018.

  27. Cheng AW, Abbas MA, Tejirian T. Outcome of abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: Permacol™ versus Strattice™. Am Surg. 2014;80(10):999–1002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Warwick AM, Velineni R, Smart NJ, Daniels IR. Onlay parastomal hernia repair with cross-linked porcine dermal collagen biologic mesh: long-term results. Hernia. 2016;20(2):321–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. MacLeod TM, Cambrey A, Williams G, Sanders R, Green CJ. Evaluation of Permacol as a cultured skin equivalent. Burns. 2008;34(8):1169–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Halim AS, Khoo TL, Mohd Yussof SJ. Biologic and synthetic skin substitutes: an overview. Indian J Plast Surg. 2010;43(S):S23–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Vig K, Chaudhari A, Tripathi S, Dixit S, Sahu R, Pillai S, et al. Advances in skin regeneration using tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(4):789.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Freshwater MF, Krizek TJ. Skin grafting of burns: a centennial. A tribute to George David Pollock. J Trauma. 1971;11(10):862–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee KC, Joory K, Moiemen NS. History of burns: the past, present and the future. Burns Trauma. 2014;2(4):169–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Herndon DN. Total burn care: expert consult—online and print: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.

  35. Bondoc CC, Burke JF. Clinical experience with viable frozen human skin and a frozen skin bank. Ann Surg. 1971;174(3):371–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Shevchenko RV, James SL, James SE. A review of tissue-engineered skin bioconstructs available for skin reconstruction. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7(43):229–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Jones G, Yoo A, King V, Jao B, Wang H, Rammos C, et al. Prepectoral immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with anterior AlloDerm coverage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):31S–8S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Parikh RP, Brown G, Sharma K, Yan Y, Myckatyn TM. Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: a comparison of sterile and aseptic AlloDerm in 2039 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018.

  39. Gabriel A, Maxwell GP. AlloDerm RTU integration and clinical outcomes when used for reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(5):e1744.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Simpson A, Samargandi OA, Wong A, Graham ME, Bezuhly M. Repair of primary cleft palate and oronasal fistula with acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and surgeon survey. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018:1055665618774028.

  41. Bowers CA, Brimley C, Cole C, Gluf W, Schmidt RH. AlloDerm for duraplasty in Chiari malformation: superior outcomes. Acta Neurochir. 2015;157(3):507–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cobb MIH, Crowson M, Mintz-Cole R, Husain AM, Berger M, Jang D, et al. Transnasal transsphenoidal elevation of optic chiasm in secondary empty sella syndrome following prolactinoma treatment. World Neurosurg. 2018;112:250–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yim H, Cho YS, Seo CH, Lee BC, Ko JH, Kim D, et al. The use of AlloDerm on major burn patients: AlloDerm prevents post-burn joint contracture. Burns. 2010;36(3):322–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Callcut RA, Schurr MJ, Sloan M, Faucher LD. Clinical experience with Alloderm: a one-staged composite dermal/epidermal replacement utilizing processed cadaver dermis and thin autografts. Burns. 2006;32(5):583–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wainwright DJ, Bury SB. Acellular dermal matrix in the management of the burn patient. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(7S):13S–23S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pirayesh A, Hoeksema H, Richters C, Verbelen J, Monstrey S. Glyaderm(®) dermal substitute: clinical application and long-term results in 55 patients. Burns. 2015;41(1):132–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Verbelen J, Hoeksema H, Pirayesh A, Van Landuyt K, Monstrey S. Exposed tibial bone after burns: flap reconstruction versus dermal substitute. Burns. 2016;42(2):e31–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Leclerc T, Thepenier C, Jault P, Bey E, Peltzer J, Trouillas M, et al. Cell therapy of burns. Cell Prolif. 2011;44(S1):48–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Clarke JA. HIV transmission and skin grafts. Lancet. 1987;1(8539):983.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Professor Ioannis Yannas: MITMECHE; [Available from: http://meche.mit.edu/people/faculty/YANNAS@MIT.EDU].

  51. Freidah J. Hope regenerated (a life-saving discovery at MIT MechE). USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2016. p. 16:56.

  52. Yannas IV, Burke JF, Orgill DP, Skrabut EM. Wound tissue can utilize a polymeric template to synthesize a functional extension of skin. Science. 1982;215(4529):174–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Orgill DP. The effects of an artificial skin on scarring and contraction in open wounds 1983 [Available from: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=p5HtZOAAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate ].

  54. Yannas IV, Burke JF, Warpehoski M, Stasikelis P, Skrabut EM, Orgill D, et al. Prompt, long-term functional replacement of skin. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1981;27:19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Yannas IV, Burke JF, Orgill DP, Skrabut EM, inventors. Method of promoting the regeneration of tissue at a wound. USA1983 1983-12-06.

  56. Burke JF, Yannas IV, Quinby WC Jr, Bondoc CC, Jung WK. Successful use of a physiologically acceptable artificial skin in the treatment of extensive burn injury. Ann Surg. 1981;194(4):413–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Yannas IV, Tzeranis DS, Harley BA, So PTC. Biologically active collagen-based scaffolds: advances in processing and characterization. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2010;368(1917):2123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Moiemen N, Yarrow J, Hodgson E, Constantinides J, Chipp E, Oakley H, et al. Long-term clinical and histological analysis of Integra dermal regeneration template. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(3):1149–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Moiemen NS, Vlachou E, Staiano JJ, Thawy Y, Frame JD. Reconstructive surgery with Integra dermal regeneration template: histologic study, clinical evaluation, and current practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7S):160S–74S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stiefel D, Schiestl C, Meuli M. Integra artificial skin for burn scar revision in adolescents and children. Burns. 2010;36(1):114–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Zajíček R, Grossová I, Šuca H, Kubok R, Pafčuga I. Experience with Integra® at the Prague Burns Centre 2002-2016. Acta Chir Plast. 2017;59(1):18–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Khan MA, Ali SN, Farid M, Pancholi M, Rayatt S, Yap LH. Use of dermal regeneration template (Integra) for reconstruction of full-thickness complex oncologic scalp defects. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(3):905–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Watts V, Attie MD, McClure S. Reconstruction of complex full-thickness scalp defects after dog-bite injuries using dermal regeneration template (Integra): case report and literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018.

  64. Chen TA, Ayala-Haedo JA, Blessing NW, Topping K, Alabiad CR, Erickson BP. Bioengineered dermal substitutes for the management of traumatic periocular tissue loss. Orbit. 2018;37(2):115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Belek KA, Alkureishi LW, Dunn AA, Devcic Z, Kuri M, Lee CK, et al. Single-stage reconstruction of a devastating antebrachial injury with brachial artery, median nerve, and soft tissue deficit: a case report and review of the literature. Eplasty. 2010;10:e33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Clark RA, Ghosh K, Tonnesen MG. Tissue engineering for cutaneous wounds. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(5):1018–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Nguyen DQ, Potokar TS, Price P. An objective long-term evaluation of Integra (a dermal skin substitute) and split thickness skin grafts, in acute burns and reconstructive surgery. Burns. 2010;36(1):23–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yannas IV, Burke JF, Gordon PL, Huang C, Rubenstein RH. Design of an artificial skin. II. Control of chemical composition. J Biomed Mater Res. 1980;14(2):107–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Greenhalgh DG. The use of dermal substitutes in burn surgery: acute phase. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22(1):1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Fette A. Integra artificial skin in use for full-thickness burn surgery: benefits or harms on patient outcome. Technol Health Care. 2005;13(6):463–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Matsumoto T, Holmes RH, Burdick CO, Heisterkamp CA, O’Connell TJ. Replacement of large veins with free inverted segments of small bowel: autografts of submucosal membrane in dogs and clinical use. Ann Surg. 1966;164(5):845.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Spievack AR, ACell Inc, inventors. Tissue regenerative composition, method of making, and method of use thereof. USA2003 2003-06-10.

  73. Gilbert TW, Sellaro TL, Badylak SF. Decellularization of tissues and organs. Biomaterials. 2006;27(19):3675–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lindberg K, Babylak SF. Porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS): a bioscaffold supporting in vitro primary human epidermal cell differentiation and synthesis of basement membrane proteins. Burns. 2001;27(3):254–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Our Story: ACell Inc; 2018 [Available from: https://acell.com/our-story/].

  76. 510(k) Summary—ACell UBM lyophilized wound dressing. In: Services DoHaH, editor.: Food and Drug Administration; 2002.

  77. Brown B, Lindberg K, Reing J, Badylak S. The basement membrane component of biologic scaffolds derived from extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(3):519–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Badylak SF. The extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2002;13(5):377–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lanteri Parcells A, Abernathie B, Datiashvili R. The use of urinary bladder matrix in the treatment of complicated open wounds. Wounds. 2014;26(7):189.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. • Kim JS, Kaminsky AJ, Summitt JB, Thayer WP. New innovations for deep partial-thickness burn treatment with ACell MatriStem matrix. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2016;5(12):546–52 (This recent publication provides insight into how ACell® products are increasingly being studied in spite of the currently-limited research on their clinical uses).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Martinson M, Martinson N. A comparative analysis of skin substitutes used in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. J Wound Care. 2016;25(Sup10):S8–S17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Frykberg RG, Cazzell SM, Arroyo-Rivera J, Tallis A, Reyzelman AM, Saba F, et al. Evaluation of tissue engineering products for the management of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: an interim analysis. J Wound Care. 2016;25(Suppl 7):S18–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Liu YC, Chhabra N, Houser SM. Novel treatment of a septal ulceration using an extracellular matrix scaffold (septal ulceration treatment using ECM). Am J Otolaryngol. 2016;37(3):195–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Rommer EA, Peric M, Wong A. Urinary bladder matrix for the treatment of recalcitrant nonhealing radiation wounds. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013;26(10):450–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Iorio T, Blumberg D. Short-term results of treating primary and recurrent anal fistulas with a novel extracellular matrix derived from porcine urinary bladder. Am Surg. 2015;81(5):498–502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Afaneh C, Abelson J, Schattner M, Janjigian YY, Ilson D, Yoon SS, et al. Esophageal reinforcement with an extracellular scaffold during total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(4):1252–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Cairo SB, Tabak B, Harmon CM, Bass KD. Novel use of porcine extracellular matrix in recurrent stricture following repair of tracheoesophageal fistula. Pediatr Surg Int. 2017;33(9):1027–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Sasse KC, Warner DL, Ackerman E, Brandt J. Hiatal hernia repair with novel biological graft reinforcement. JSLS. 2016;20(2).

  89. Gupta A, Francis S, Stewart R, Hobson D, Meriwether KV. Repair of colonic neovaginal stenosis using a biological graft in a male-to-female transgender patient. Int Urogynecol J 2018.

  90. Pearlman AM, Mujumdar V, McAbee KE, Terlecki RP. Outcomes of adult urethroplasty with commercially available acellular matrix. Ther Adv Urol. 2018;10(11):351–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Liang R, Knight K, Easley D, Palcsey S, Abramowitch S, Moalli PA. Towards rebuilding vaginal support utilizing an extracellular matrix bioscaffold. Acta Biomater. 2017;57:324–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Shanti RM, Smart RJ, Meram A, Kim D. Porcine urinary bladder extracellular matrix for the salvage of fibula free flap skin paddle: technical note and description of a case. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2017;10(4):318–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Dorman RM, Bass KD. Novel use of porcine urinary bladder matrix for pediatric pilonidal wound care: preliminary experience. Pediatr Surg Int. 2016;32(10):997–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Flavill E, Gilmore JE. Septal perforation repair without intraoperative mucosal closure. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(5):1112–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Abu Saleh WK, Al Jabbari O, Ramlawi B, Bruckner BA, Loebe M, Reardon MJ. Right atrial tumor resection and reconstruction with use of an acellular porcine bladder membrane. Tex Heart Inst J. 2016;43(2):175–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Abu Saleh WK, Al Jabbari O, Bruckner BA, Reardon MJ. Case report: a rare case of left atrial hemangioma: surgical resection and reconstruction. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2016;12(1):51–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Sasse KC, Brandt J, Lim DC, Ackerman E. Accelerated healing of complex open pilonidal wounds using MatriStem extracellular matrix xenograft: nine cases. J Surg Case Rep 2013;2013(4).

  98. Algzlan H, Varada S. Three-dimensional printing of the skin. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(2):207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. • Augustine R. Skin bioprinting: a novel approach for creating artificial skin from synthetic and natural building blocks. Prog Biomater 2018. (A recent report that provides an introduction to 3D skin printing, a promising future option for the future of skin reconstruction).

  100. He P, Zhao J, Zhang J, Li B, Gou Z, Gou M, et al. Bioprinting of skin constructs for wound healing. Burns Trauma. 2018;6:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Chen M, Przyborowski M, Berthiaume F. Stem cells for skin tissue engineering and wound healing. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2009;37(4–5):399–421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Niezgoda A, Niezgoda P, Nowowiejska L, Białecka A, Męcińska-Jundziłł K, Adamska U, et al. Properties of skin stem cells and their potential clinical applications in modern dermatology. Eur J Dermatol. 2017;27(3):227–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Canada

    Alexander Adibfar

  2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Helene Retrouvey, Marc G. Jeschke & Shahriar Shahrokhi

  3. University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Canada

    Stefan Padeanu

  4. Ross Tilley Burn Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, D716, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada

    Marc G. Jeschke & Shahriar Shahrokhi

Authors
  1. Alexander Adibfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helene Retrouvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Padeanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc G. Jeschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shahriar Shahrokhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahriar Shahrokhi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Adibfar has nothing to disclose. Dr. Retrouvey has nothing to disclose. Dr. Padeanu has nothing to disclose. Dr. Shahrokhi reports personal fees from Integra LifeSciences, personal fees from UpToDate, personal fees from Acelity, outside the submitted work. Dr. Jeschke has nothing to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All patients have given consent for their pictures to be included in publications.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Burns

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adibfar, A., Retrouvey, H., Padeanu, S. et al. Current State of Selected Wound Regeneration Templates and Temporary Covers. Curr Trauma Rep 5, 79–89 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-019-00165-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-019-00165-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation