Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 131–141 | Cite as

ReCell® Spray-On Skin System for Treating Skin Loss, Scarring and Depigmentation after Burn Injury: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

  • Susan Caroline PeirceEmail author
  • Grace Carolan-Rees
Review Article

Abstract

The gold standard treatment for deep burns is an autologous skin graft; in larger burns this may be meshed to increase the area covered. However, long-term aesthetic and functional outcomes of graft scars may be poor. ReCell® is a medical device that processes skin samples in the operating theatre into a cell suspension to be sprayed or dripped onto a wound. It is claimed to improve healing and scar appearance. This device was evaluated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. Two groups were defined: ReCell compared to conventional dressings in shallower burns, and meshed grafts plus ReCell compared to meshed grafts alone in larger deeper burns. The manufacturer’s clinical evidence submission included three papers and eight conference abstracts. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) excluded two of these and added seven abstracts. In general, the evidence did not fit the defined groups, but suggested that ReCell was clinically comparable to skin grafts for partial thickness burns; however, ReCell is not used in this way in the UK. The manufacturer submitted an economic model in which ReCell treatment of partial thickness burns reduced the requirement for later skin grafts. This indicated that ReCell alone was cost saving in comparison to conventional dressings. The EAC indicated that this model was clinically inappropriate, but data were not available to populate a new model. NICE Medical Technologies Guidance 21 recommended that additional research was needed to address the uncertainties regarding the potential benefits of ReCell.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. Ceri Phillips, Kateryna Onishenko (Swansea Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University) and Kathleen Withers (Cedar) for their contributions to the External Assessment Centre assessment report and additional survey work. The authors also thank Dr. Judith White for help with the formatting and editing of the manuscript. This article has been reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and has not been externally peer reviewed by Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

Author Contributions

SCP and GCR evaluated both the clinical and economic evidence on which this manuscript is based. SCP conducted the survey of clinical opinion. GCR reviewed the full External Assessment Centre report and this article, and can act as a guarantor for the overall content.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Cedar is a collaboration between Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and Cardiff University. Cedar is funded by NICE to act as an EAC for the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme.

Conflict of interest

Cedar is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme to act as an External Assessment Centre. Susan C. Peirce is employed by Cardiff University and Grace Carolan-Rees is a UK National Health Service employee; the National Health Service has a financial interest in the guidance on which this project is based.

Ethics approval

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

References

  1. 1.
    Campbell B, Campbell M. NICE medical technologies guidance: a novel and rigorous methodology to address a new health technology assessment challenge. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10:295–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    NICE. The ReCell spray-on skin system for treating skin loss, scarring and depigmentation after burn injury (MTG21). 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg21. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.
  3. 3.
    Atiyeh BS, Costagliola M, Hayek SN. Burn prevention mechanisms and outcomes: pitfalls, failures and successes. Burns. 2009;35:181–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deitch EA, Wheelahan TM, Rose MP, Clothier J, Cotter J. Hypertrophic burn scars: analysis of variables. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1983;23:895–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cubison TC, Pape SA, Parkhouse N. Evidence for the link between healing time and the development of hypertrophic scars (HTS) in paediatric burns due to scald injury. Burns. 2006;32:992–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    NICE. moorLDI2-BI: a laser doppler blood flow imager for burn wound assessment (MTG2). 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg2. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.
  7. 7.
    NHS England. Specialised services. 2018. https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.
  8. 8.
    NBCG (UK National Burn Care Group). International Burn Injury Database: UK burn injury data 1986–2007 inclusive. 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sen S, Ives M, Philp B, Dziewulski P, Herndon D, Wood F. Use of split thickness dermal grafts in combination with sprayed keratinocytes in burns. In: International Society for Burns Injuries Meeting, Edinburgh; Sept 2012.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gravante G, Fede MC, Araco A, Grimaldi M, Angelis B, Arpino A, et al. A randomized trial comparing ReCell system of epidermal cells delivery versus classic skin grafts for the treatment of deep partial thickness burns. Burns. 2007;33:966–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wood F, Martin L, Lewis D, Rawlins J, McWilliams T, Burrows S. A prospective randomised clinical pilot study to compare the effectiveness of Biobrane synthetic wound dressing, with or without autologous cell suspension, to the local standard treatment regimen in paediatric scald injuries. Burns. 2012;38:830–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park JH, Heggie KM, Edgar DW, Bulsara MK, Wood FM. Does the type of skin replacement surgery influence the rate of infection in acute burn injured patients? Burns. 2013;39:1386–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunne J, Rawlins J. Early paediatric scald surgery: developing a (cost effective) dermal preserving surgical protocol for all childhood scalds. International Society for Burns Injuries Meeting, Edinburgh; Sept 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rawlins JM. ReCell versus split-thickness skin grafts in the management of deep dermal paediatric scalds. Chinese Burns Association Meeting; 2013 (private communication).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rawlins J, Signy J, Rea S, Wood F. Dermabrasion, ReCell and Biobrane versus split thickness skin grafting for deep flame burns: a comparative pilot study. In: 14th Annual Congress of the European Burns Association, The Hague; Sept 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Echlin K, Way B, Jones I. Autologous non-cultured epidermal cell suspension to improve healing in deeper partial thickness facial burns. In: International Society for Burns Injuries Meeting, Edinburgh; Sept 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Echlin K, Way B, Jones I. Autologous non-cultured epidermal cell suspension to accelerate healing of split thickness donor sites. In: International Society for Burns Injuries Meeting, Edinburgh; Sept 2012.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palombo M, Bruno A, Santi G, Anniboletti T, Moroni S, Palombo P. Our experience with ReCell: a panel of cases. In: International Society for Burns Injuries Meeting, Edinburgh; Sept 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dunne J, Rawlins J. A comparison of ReCell and split thickness skin grafts in management of paediatric burns. In: International Society for Burn Injuries Meeting, Edinburgh; Sept 2012.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dunne J, Rawlins J. How we do it: early dermal salvage with Biobrane and ReCell in the management of deep dermal burn wounds. In: 15th Congress of the European Burns Association, Vienna; Aug 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hiller M, Limbourg A, Branski L, Vogt P, Jokuszies A. Improving aesthetic outcome: therapy for facial burns with ReCell. In: 15th congress of the European Burns Association, Vienna; Aug 2013.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rennekampff H, Herold C, Vogt M. Keratinocyte suspension for the treatment of facial burns. Burns. 2011;37:S17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rawlins J. A prospective randomised clinical trial to investigate and evaluate patient outcomes of Biobrane biosynthetic wound dressings with and without ReCell autologous cell suspension in paediatric scald injuries. In: International Society for Burn Injuries Meeting, Instanbul; June 2010.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rawlins JM, Signy J, Rea S, Wood FM. Biobrane with ReCell for the treatment of deep dermal burns to the legs: a comparative pilot study. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32:S174.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rawlins J. Treatment of deep dermal burns to the legs: a comparative pilot study. In: 44th Meeting of the British Burns Association, Salisbury; Mar 2011.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rawlins J. Early surgery for ALL paediatric scalds: developing a dermal preserving protocol for the benefit of patients and healthcare providers. J Burn Care Res. 2012;33(Suppl. 2):S144.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sood S, Roggy D, Zieger M. Preliminary results with the use of spray keratinocytes in the treatment of partial thickness burns. Burns. 2009;35:S20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Cedar, Cardiff and Vale University Health BoardCardiff MedicentreCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations