Advertisement

pp 1-12 | Cite as

An Approach to Keloid Reconstruction with Dermal Substitute and Epidermal Skin Grafting

  • Tommaso Agostini
  • Christian Pascone
  • Raffaella Perello
  • Antonio Di Lonardo
Chapter
Part of the Recent Clinical Techniques, Results, and Research in Wounds book series

Abstract

Keloids represent a challenging topic for reconstructive surgeons. Surgical debulking is the main treatment for these lesions, although recurrence rates are reported to be 45–100%. Here, we present a staged reconstructive approach through a dermal regeneration substrate and epidermal grafting in order to minimize recurrence and donor site morbidity. All keloids were excised down to healthy tissue. A bilaminar dermal regeneration template was used to reconstruction, with the silicone lamina oriented superficially. The second step of reconstruction was delayed for at least 21 days to allow for neodermal ingrowth. Once the protective lamina was removed, an epidermal skin graft was applied to the neodermis with nonocclusive dressing. This combined approach limits scar contracture facilitating tension-free wound healing with a consequent lower rate of recurrences.

References

  1. 1.
    Nguyen DQ, Dickson WA (2006) A review of the use of a dermal skin substitute in burns care. J Wound Care 15(8):373–376Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Veen VC, Boekema BK, Ulrich MM, Middelkoop E (2011) New dermal substitutes. Wound Repair Regen 19(Suppl 1):s59–s65Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kolokythas P, Aust MC, Vogt PM, Paulsen F (2008) Dermal subsitute with the collagen-elastin matrix Matriderm in burn injuries: a comprehensive review. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 40(6):367–371Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Min JH, Yun IS, Lew DH, Roh TS, Lee WJ (2014) The use of matriderm and autologous skin graft in the treatment of full thickness skin defects. Arch Plast Surg 41(4):330–336Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debels H, Hamdi M, Abberton K, Morrison W (2015) Dermal matrices and bioengineered skin substitutes: a critical review of current options. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(1):e284Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haslik W, Kamolz LP, Manna F, Hladik M, Rath T, Frey M (2010) Management of full-thickness skin defects in the hand and wrist region: first long-term experiences with the dermal matrix Matriderm. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(2):360–364Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghosh MM, Boyce S, Layton C, Freedlander E, Mac Neil S (1997) A comparison of methodologies for the preparation of human epidermal-dermal composites. Ann Plast Surg 39(4):390–404Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sahota PS, Burn JL, Brown NJ, MacNeil S (2004) Approaches to improve angiogenesis in tissue-engineered skin. Wound Repair Regen 12(6):635–642Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lumenta DB, Kamolz LP, Frey M (2009) Adult burn patients with more than 60% TBSA involved-meek and other techniques to overcome restricted skin harvest availability--the Viennese concept. J Burn Care Res 30(2):231–242Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Böttcher-Haberzeth S, Biedermann T, Schiestl C, Hartmann-Fritsch F, Schneider J, Reichmann E, Meuli M (2012) Matriderm® 1 mm versus Integra® single layer 1.3 mm for one-step closure of full thickness skin defects: a comparative experimental study in rats. Pediatr Surg Int 28(2):171–177Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodrigues FT, Martins VCA, Plepis AMG (2010) Porcine skin as a source of biodegradable matrices: alkaline treatment and glutaraldehyde crosslinking. Polímeros 20(2):92–97Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yannas IV, Burke JF (1980) Design of an artificial skin. I. Basic design principles. J Biomed Mater Res 14(1):65–81Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dini M, Quercioli F, Mori A, Romano GF, Lee AQ, Agostini T (2012) Vacuum-assisted closure, dermal regeneration template and degloved cryopreserved skin as useful tools in subtotal degloving of the lower limb. Injury 43(6):957–959Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calamia V, Lourido L, Fernández-Puente P, Mateos J, Rocha B, Montell E, Vergés J, Ruiz-Romero C, Blanco FJ (2012) Secretome analysis of chondroitin sulfate-treated chondrocytes reveals anti-angiogenic, anti-inflammatory and anti-catabolic properties. Arthritis Res Ther 14(5):R202Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chu CS, McManus AT, Matylevich NP, Goodwin CW, Pruitt BA Jr (2002) Integra as a dermal replacement in a meshed composite skin graft in a rat model: a one-step operative procedure. J Trauma 52(1):122–129Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen DQ, Potokar TS, Price P (2010) An objective long-term evaluation of Integra (a dermal skin substitute) and split thickness skin grafts, in acute burns and reconstructive surgery. Burns 36(1):23–28Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Capo JT, Kokko KP, Rizzo M, Adams JE, Shamian B, Abernathie B, Melamed E (2014) The use of skin substitutes in the treatment of the hand and upper extremity. Hand (NY) 9(2):156–165Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vithlani G, Santos Jorge P, Brizman E, Mitsimponas K (2017) Integra(®) as a single-stage dermal regeneration template in reconstruction of large defects of the scalp. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55(8):844–846Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zajíček R, Grossová I, Šuca H, Kubok R, Pafčuga I (2017) Experience with Integra® at the Prague Burns Centre 2002-2016. Acta Chir Plast 59(1):18–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tommaso Agostini
    • 1
  • Christian Pascone
    • 1
  • Raffaella Perello
    • 1
  • Antonio Di Lonardo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryClinica San PaoloPistoiaItaly

Personalised recommendations