Evidence-Based Review of Clinical Applications and Outcomes of Automated Epidermal Grafting

  • Azam A. Qureshi
  • Robert S. KirsnerEmail author
Wound Care (H Lev-Tov, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Wound Care


Purpose of Review

Commercialization of an automated epidermal harvesting device (CelluTome™, Kinetic Concepts Inc., San Antonio, TX) in the last 6 years has led to numerous publications describing a growing number of clinical applications. The current article reviews this literature while summarizing outcomes.

Recent Findings

A total of 20 published reports including 284 automated graft recipients have been published. Complete reepithelialization occurs in 50–92% of recipient sites, often within 4–18 weeks of graft placement. Donor sites heal without scarring within 1–2 weeks.


Current evidence suggests efficacy in using an automated epidermal harvesting device for the wounds of patients with multiple comorbidities and failing previous treatments for their wounds, including vascular ulcers, diabetic ulcers, surgical wounds, complex wounds, acute traumatic wounds, pyoderma gangrenosum, and burns. Limited evidence also suggests efficacy of automated epidermal grafting for disorders of pigmentation. Better trials studying individual clinical applications of epidermal grafting are needed.


Epidermal skin graft Wound healing Vitiligo Pigmentation disorders 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


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

  1. 1.
    Kirsner RS, Bernstein B, Bhatia A, Lantis J, Le L, Lincoln K, et al. Clinical experience and best practices using epidermal skin grafts on wounds. Wounds. 2015;27:282–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bystrzonowski N, Hachach-Haram N, Kanapathy M, Richards T, Mosahebi A. Epidermal graft accelerates the healing of acute wound. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khunger N, Kathuria SD, Ramesh V. Tissue grafts in vitiligo surgery - past, present, and future. Indian J Dermatol. 2009;54:150–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Serena T, Francius A, Taylor C, MacDonald J. Use of a novel epidermal harvesting system in resource-poor countries. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2015;28:107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burm JS, Rhee SC, Kim YW. Superficial dermabrasion and suction blister epidermal grafting for postburn dyspigmentation in Asian skin. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33:326–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang WYM, Chan LY, Lo KK. Treatment of vitiligo with autologous epidermal transplantation using the roofs of suction blisters. Hong Kong Med J. 1998;4:219–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta S, Jain VK, Saraswat PK, Gupta S. Suction blister epidermal grafting versus punch skin grafting in recalcitrant and stable vitiligo. Dermatol Surg. 1999;25:955–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kiistala U, Mustakallio KK. In-vivo separation of epidermis by production of suction blisters. Lancet (London, England). 1964;2:1444–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richmond NA, Lamel SA, Braun LR, Vivas AC, Serena T, Kirsner RS. Epidermal grafting using a novel suction blister–harvesting system for the treatment of pyoderma Gangrenosum. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maderal AD, Kirsner RS. Clinical and economic benefits of autologous epidermal grafting. Cureus. 2016;8:e875.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Maderal AD, Kirsner RS. Use of epidermal grafting for treatment of depigmented skin in Piebaldism. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:159–60 Novel application of automated epidermal harvesting and grafting in piebaldism. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanapathy M, Hachach-Haram N, Bystrzonowski N, Connelly JT, O’Toole EA, Becker DL, et al. Epidermal grafting for wound healing: a review on the harvesting systems, the ultrastructure of the graft and the mechanism of wound healing. Int Wound J. 2017;14:16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamaguchi Y, Hosokawa K, Kawai K, Inoue K, Mizuno K, Takagi S, et al. Involvement of keratinocyte activation phase in cutaneous graft healing: comparison of full-thickness and split-thickness skin grafts. Dermatol Surg. 2000;26:463–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osborne SN, Schmidt MA, Derrick K, Harper JR. Epidermal micrografts produced via an automated and minimally invasive tool form at the dermal/epidermal junction and contain proliferative cells that secrete wound healing growth factors. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2015;28:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Howarth AL, Bell BE, Peterson WC, Renz EM, King BT, Chan RK. A novel approach to graft loss in burn using the CelluTome™ epidermal harvesting system for spot grafting: a case report. Burns. 2015;41:e57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabriel A, Sobota RV, Champaneria M. Initial experience with a new epidermal harvesting system: overview of epidermal grafting and case series. Surg Technol Int. 2014;25:55–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tran T-NT, Van Hoang M, Phan Q-AN, Phung T, Purschke M, Farinelli W, et al. Fractional epidermal grafting in combination with laser therapy as a novel approach in treating radiation dermatitis. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015;34:42–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hachach-Haram N, Bystrzonowski N, Kanapathy M, Edmondson S-J, Twyman L, Richards T, et al. The use of epidermal grafting for the management of acute wounds in the outpatient setting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:1317–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prakash TV, Chaudhary A, Purushothaman S, Smitha KV, Arvind KV. Epidermal grafting for chronic complex wounds in India: a case series. Cureus. 2016;8:e516.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cai SS, Gowda AU, Chopra K, Waldman R, Silverman RP, Rasko YM. A case series of complex recalcitrant wounds treated with epidermal grafts harvested from an automated device. Cureus. 2016;8:e853.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janowska A, Dini V, Panduri S, Macchia M, Oranges T, Romanelli M. Epidermal skin grafting in vitiligo: a pilot study. Int Wound J. 2016;13:47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Lincoln K, Hyde J. Evaluation of epidermal skin grafts for the treatment of complex wounds in a wound care center: a 94-patient case series. Wounds. 2016;28:347–53 Largest sample of wounds treated with automated epidermal harvesting and grafting published to date. Describes infection in 25/90 treated wounds. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fearmonti RM. Efficacy of epidermal skin grafts over complex, chronic wounds in patients with multiple comorbidities. Wounds. 2016;28:226–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bhatia A. Epidermal skin grafting in patients with complex wounds: a case series. J Wound Care. 2016;25:148–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buehrer G, Arkudas A, Horch RE. Treatment of standardised wounds with pure epidermal micrografts generated with an automated device. Int Wound J. 2017;14:856–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hachach-Haram N, Bystrzonowski N, Kanapathy M, Smith O, Harding K, Mosahebi A, et al. A prospective, multicentre study on the use of epidermal grafts to optimise outpatient wound management. Int Wound J. 2017;14:241–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    • Smith OJ, Edmondson S-J, Bystrzonowski N, Hachach-Haram N, Kanapathy M, Richards T, et al. The CelluTome epidermal graft-harvesting system: a patient-reported outcome measure and cost evaluation study. Int Wound J. 2017;14:555–60 Describes graft failure in 2 immunocompromised patients. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Janowska A, Oranges T, Chiricozzi A, Romanelli M, Dini V. Synergism of therapies after postoperative autograft failure in a patient with melanoma of the foot misdiagnosed as a pressure ulcer. Wounds. 2018;30:E41–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Study of cellutome system for treatment of individual lesions in EB Pts [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available from:
  30. 30.
    Study comparing healing with epidermal fractional blistergrafting (CellutomeTM) to acellular technique [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available from:
  31. 31.
    Clinical trial to evaluate blister graft utilizing a novel harvesting device for treatment of venous leg ulcers [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available from:
  32. 32.
    Kanapathy M, Hachach-Haram N, Bystrzonowski N, Harding K, Mosahebi A, Richards T. Epidermal grafting versus split-thickness skin grafting for wound healing (EPIGRAAFT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Osborne SN, Schmidt MA, Harper JR. An automated and minimally invasive tool for generating autologous viable epidermal micrografts. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016;29:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Twyman L. Epidermal harvesting in plastic surgery outpatients -an interdisciplinary team approach. Wounds UK. 2016;12:69–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous SurgeryUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA
  3. 3.University of Miami Hospital and Clinics Wound CenterUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA
  4. 4.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations