Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Dermal Matrices and Bioengineered Skin Substitutes: A Critical Review of Current Options

Debels, Heidi MD*†‡; Hamdi, Moustapha MD, PhD, FCCP†‡; Abberton, Keren MRepSci, PhD*§¶; Morrison, Wayne MDBS, FRACS*§¶

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open: January 2015 - Volume 3 - Issue 1 - p e284
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000219
Experimental
Open
Belgium
Best Paper

Background: Over recent decades, scientists and surgeons have collaborated to develop various bioengineered and synthetic products as an alternative to skin grafts. Despite the numerous articles and reviews written about dermal skin substitutes, there is no general consensus.

Methods: This article reviews dermal skin scaffolds used in clinical applications and experimental settings. For scaffold evaluation, we focused on clinical and/or histological results, and conclusions are listed. Explanations for general trends were sought based on existing knowledge about tissue engineering principles and wound healing mechanisms.

Results: Decellularized dermis seems to remain the best option with no other acellular scaffold being clinically proven to gain better results yet. In general, chemically cross-linked products were seen to be less effective in skin tissue engineering. Biocompatibility could be enhanced by preseeding substitutes with fibroblasts to allow some natural scaffold remodeling before product application.

Conclusions: Skin substitutes are a useful tool in plastic and reconstructive surgery practices as an alternative to skin grafts. In the choice of substitute, the general plastic surgery principle of replacing like tissue with like tissue seems to be still standing, and products most resembling the natural dermal extracellular matrix should be preferred.

From the *O’Brien Institute Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia; Free University Brussels (VUB), Brussels, Belgium; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of Brussels (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium; §Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia; and Melbourne University Department of Surgery, St. Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.

Received for publication July 20, 2014; accepted September 16, 2014.

Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article. The Article Processing Charge was paid for by the authors.

Heidi Debels, MD, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Brussels (UZ Brussel), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussel, Belgium, E-mail: heidi.debels@vub.ac.be

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

For many centuries, skin grafts have been used to restore wound defects after trauma, vascular disease, or cancer. However, availability of sufficient healthy skin can be an issue, as well as the additional health risks associated with the procedure. The deforming donor-site morbidity should also be considered when opting for skin grafting.

Disadvantages as such have led to innovations in skin tissue engineering. Over recent decades, scientists and surgeons have collaborated to develop various bioengineered and synthetic alternatives to promote healing in superficial and deep skin wounds. Tissue-engineered skin scaffolds are 3-dimensional structures that are positioned within the defect and provide immediate protection against dehydration, microorganisms, and toxins.1 The scaffold then gradually becomes incorporated in the wound bed, a process aided by natural wound healing mechanisms such as local inflammation, cell infiltration (neutrophils, macrophages, and fibroblasts), and neovascularization of the scaffold. More recent advances in skin substitutes involve prepopulation of scaffolds with living cells of autologous or allogeneic origin, usually keratinocytes or fibroblasts.

The choice of an appropriate scaffold is important to guide cell behavior, and cytotoxic products or materials that induce extensive scar formation should be avoided. Scaffolds often have unique physical characteristics due to differences in manufacturing techniques such as decellularization, sterilization, freeze drying, and cross-linking protocols.2 To resist in vivo forces like wound contraction, scaffold materials are, for example, often freeze dried and/or chemically cross-linked to enhance strength. However, it has been demonstrated that chemical cross-linking can alter clinical results. Non-cross-linked materials exhibit greater cellular infiltration, extracellular matrix deposition, and neovascularization compared with their chemically cross-linked alternatives.2 They also become less encapsulated3 and thus more incorporated. Cross-linking a product is a means to enhance strength, but can seriously affect clinical properties.

Despite the numerous articles and reviews written about dermal skin substitutes, there is no general consensus. This article reviews dermal skin scaffolds used in clinical applications and experimental settings. For scaffold evaluation, we focused on clinical and/or histological results, and conclusions are listed. Explanations for general trends were sought based on existing knowledge about tissue engineering principles and wound healing mechanisms.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REVIEW

Acellular dermal allografts originate from deepithelialized cadaveric skin. The skin is treated to remove cellular, infectious, and antigenic materials.4 The resultant product is usually freeze dried, allowing it to store easily for many months without refrigeration, and manufacturing generally does not involve chemical cross-linking.2 AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) has been widely used in several applications for many years. There is an injectable form of AlloDerm marketed as Cymetra (LifeCell),5 basically a micronized form. AlloDerm is used as a dermal substitute in deep partial- and full-thickness burn wounds, facilitating subsequent autologous split-thickness skin graft take.6 Successful simultaneous grafting on AlloDerm has, however, also been described.7 Besides a dermis, AlloDerm has also been successfully used for other sorts of soft-tissue replacement,8 implantable prosthesis coverage,9 pelvic and abdominal wall defect repair,10,11 lip augmentation,12 laryngoplasty,13 and vaginal prolapse repair.14,15 Synthes’ alternative is called DermaMatrix (Synthes, West Chester, Pa.). In a comparative study in an in vivo murine model, DermaMatrix was shown to maintain its original shape and consistency, whereas AlloDerm samples become softer and possess a poorly defined character 3 months after subdermal implantation.16 Furthermore, at 12 months only moderately thickened fibrous implant capsules were seen with DermaMatrix, whereas AlloDerm samples displayed denser connective tissue capsules with apparent chronic inflammation.17 This experimental study slightly favored DermaMatrix; however, true clinical wound healing studies are lacking.

Animal-derived acellular alternatives populate the market as well. Acellular dermal xenografts are often chemically cross-linked, theoretically making them less suitable for wound healing. Products in this group are Permacol (Tissue Science Laboratories, Hampshire, UK), a porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix, and EZ-Derm (Mölnlycke Health Care AB, Gothenburg, Sweden), a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis. The use of Permacol as a dermal substitute for wound healing purposes has indeed largely been abandoned, and clinical results of EZ-Derm in wound healing are not convincing (Table 1).15,18–29

Table 1

Table 1

Maybe more suitable for certain forms of wound healing are the, usually not chemically cross-linked,30 porcine small-intestine submucosa derivatives. Oasis Wound Matrix (Healthpoint, Fort Worth, Tex.) consists mainly of collagen, glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) (hyaluronic acid and proteoglycans), fibronectin, and growth factors such as fibroblast growth factor-2 and tumor growth factor-β. Advantages are immediate availability, storage at room temperature, and a long shelf life of 2 years.31 Its main indication is for ulcer treatment. A randomized controlled study in 120 patients with chronic venous leg ulcers showed significantly more wounds (55% vs 34%) healed when OASIS Wound Matrix was combined with compression therapy.32 In patients with mixed arterial and venous ulcers, complete wound closure was achieved in 82% of OASIS-treated ulcers compared with 46% of ulcers treated with Hyaloskin (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands), a pure hyaluronic acid dermal matrix. Pain reduction and patient comfort were also better.33 Good results were seen in the treatment of diabetic ulcers as well, where 49% of wounds healed after 12 weeks compared with only 29% treated with Regranex (Johnson & Johnson Wound Management, Somerville, N.J.), a platelet-derived gel.34

Human amniotic membrane is derived from human placenta. An example of a commercially available product is Neox (Amniox Medical, Marietta, Ga.), which contains predominantly collagen and fibronectin, resembling dermal skin and is not chemically cross-linked. It is preferred for application on thermal injuries,35 where it prevents heat and water loss from the wound surface and acts as a barrier against bacteria. Furthermore, it reduces pain, and its transparency allows better wound control.36 Human amniotic membrane dressings are best changed every 2 days.4

Manufactured acellular dermal substitutes are produced from natural polymers, synthetic polymers, or a combination of both. Natural polymers are naturally occurring materials, such as collagen, elastin, GAG, fibronectin, chitosan, fibrin, silk, and alginates.37–39 The extracellular matrix of human dermis consists of many of these polymers, the main constituents being collagen, elastin, and GAGs such as hyaluronic acid (Table 2).31,40–50

Table 2

Table 2

The advantages of natural polymers are their low toxicity and low inflammatory response.37 Natural polymers, however, usually have poor biostability and low mechanical strength, facilitating wound contraction.37,51 To improve biostability and extend durability of the graft, natural polymers are often chemically cross-linked or are cross-linked to other natural polymers, such as GAGs, fibronectin, and chitosan, or to synthetic polymers.37,51 Cross-linked natural polymers are successfully being used for purposes such as tendon replacement or hernia repair or as fillers, where material durability is much more important than cell infiltration. For wound healing purposes, they are often less suitable because of associated cell cytotoxicity.2,52

Examples of absorbable synthetic polymers are polycaprolactone, polylactic acid, polyglycolic acid, polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA), poly(ethylene glycol)/poly(butylene terephthalate), and polyethyleneglycol. Examples of nonabsorbable synthetic polymers are polyurethane, nylon, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and polyethylene terephthalate.37,38,53 Synthetic polymers have uniformity between samples and are cheaper to produce. They can be fabricated to serve desired physical properties and may be favorable when higher mechanical properties are required. Disadvantages are their limited cellular recognition and tissue compatibility in vivo.38 Many of the synthetic polymers are used in suture materials such as nylon (Dermalon, Davis and Geck, Gosport, UK; Ethilon, Ethicon, Edinburgh, UK) PLGA (Vycril, Ethicon), polyglycolic acid (Dexon, Davis and Geck), and polycaprolactone (Monocryl, Ethicon).54,55 Synthetic polymers are often used in wound dressings such as polyurethane in Tegaderm (3M Healthcare, St Paul, Minn.) and Opsite (Smith and Nephew Healthcare, London, UK).38 As said previously, natural and synthetic polymers are sometimes combined, balancing out advantages and disadvantages of the used polymers.

Some manufactured products have a removable semipermeable silicone layer on top acting as a temporary epidermis preventing moisture loss and infection. They can be grouped as acellular bilayered substitutes.

Biobrane (UDL Laboratories, Rockford, Ill.) consists of a fine nylon mesh cross-linked with porcine dermal collagen (Table 3).4,56–62 Because of the presence of nylon, Biobrane will never get incorporated and should be considered as a wound dressing rather than as a skin substitute. To date, clinical studies only show Biobrane to be superior to silver sulfadiazine.59,60 With the use of silver sulfadiazine as a dressing in burn treatment being discouraged according to a recent Cochrane review appointing it an inferior treatment,63 there is not much clinical evidence to opt for Biobrane at this point. Furthermore, 2 separate studies show no benefit of Biobrane when compared with the 4 times cheaper DuoDerm (ConvaTec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, New York City, N.Y.).61,62

Table 3

Table 3

Integra dermal regeneration template (Integra LifeSciences, Plainsboro, N.J.) was developed by Burke et al.64 It consists of a silicone layer on top of a porous matrix comprising a chemically cross-linked coprecipitate of bovine collagen and shark-derived chondroitin-6-sulfate, a GAG (Table 3).4,15,65–69 When compared with AlloDerm in a mouse wound model, the Integra matrix is seen to induce more foreign body reaction and giant cells, however, again not surprisingly, given the fact that it is a chemically cross-linked material. To allow collagen fibers and others to be deposited within Integra, the scaffold needs to be cleared first by macrophages. This is in contrast with human skin derivatives such as AlloDerm, where there is a much lesser need to clear the area in advance.70 Given the results of this study, and lacking clinical studies comparing AlloDerm and Integra, Integra is not yet convincing as an option to be preferred above non-cross-linked human skin derivatives such as AlloDerm and DermaMatrix.

More recent advances in skin substitutes involve prepopulation of scaffolds with living fibroblasts. During several weeks, the cells synthesize components of the extracellular matrix within the scaffold. Afterward, the scaffold is usually cryopreserved to allow fridge storage.4,71 Unfortunately, often a high cost is associated with these types of scaffolds. TransCyte, for example, essentially a Biobrane scaffold that is preseeded with fibroblasts, is seen to be 15 times more expensive than the usual Biobrane. An overview of products is given in Table 4.4,71–82

Table 4

Table 4

In TransCyte (Advanced BioHealing, La Jolla, Calif.), formerly known as Dermagraft-TC, a scaffold similar to Biobrane (silicon-coated nylon-collagen scaffold) is first populated with neonatal fibroblasts. Over a period of 17 days, the fibroblasts are allowed to proliferate and synthesize growth factors and extracellular matrix components.4 The addition of a matrix synthesizing fibroblast population seems to be having clinical benefits for local wound bed preparation because partial-thickness burn wounds were seen to gain faster reepithelialization when compared to Biobrane.59 Furthermore, a multicenter randomized clinical study showed it to be equivalent or even superior to frozen human cadaver allograft for the temporary closure of excised burn wounds, with regard to split-thickness graft take at postautograft day 14. It was also easier to remove and resulted in less bleeding.73 Again, due to the presence of nylon, TransCyte cannot be considered as a true skin substitute.

Skin substitutes in this category are Dermagraft (Advanced BioHealing), an absorbable PLGA scaffold seeded with neonatal fibroblasts,71,74 mostly used to stimulate healing of chronic lesions such as diabetic ulcers,4 ICX-SKN (Intercytex, Manchester, UK) a fibrin matrix seeded with neonatal human fibroblasts,79,80 and Hyalograft-3D (Fidia Advanced Biopolymers, Abano Terme, Italy) comprising esterified hyaluronic acid fibers seeded with autologous fibroblasts and covered by a silicone membrane.81 Proven benefit of Dermagraft use is reported for ulcer treatment,76–78 whereas ICX-SKN and Hyalograft-3D seem promising as well but lack human randomized controlled trials to date (Table 4).

Attempts to combine a cellular epidermal layer with a cell seeded scaffold have led to the development of the so-called living skin-equivalent grafts. Pioneers in this field were Bell et al,83 in 1981, reporting successful autografting of a keratinocyte and fibroblast-populated collagen matrix in a rat model.

PermaDerm (Regenicis, New York, N.Y.), previously known as Cincinnati Shriners Skin Substitute, is processed using autologous fibroblasts and keratinocytes in culture with collagen and GAG substrates. Due to the culture period of autologous cells, the product is not readily available. It was successfully used in the treatment of burn wounds with formation of a basement membrane within 9 days after graft placement.84 To avoid hypopigmentation of the skin after grafting, melanocytes were added to the keratinocyte culture,85 but pigmentation can still be variable and uneven.4 In an initial clinical study in burns (n = 17), the outcome of PermaDerm was similar to autologous split-thickness grafts in terms of erythema, blistering, and suppleness of the skin. However, graft take was less, and regrafting was required more frequently in the PermaDerm group.86 The biggest advantage of PermaDerm over split-thickness skin grafts is that it requires less donor skin, an area of 66 times the original donor site can be closed. PermaDerm can therefore be useful in patients with full-thickness burns greater than 50% of total body surface area.87 PermaDerm has not gained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval but received orphan status in June 2012.

The TissueTech Autograft System (Fidia Advanced Biopolymers) combines 2 products for consecutive application: the dermal substitute Hyalograft 3D, an autologous fibroblast seeded hyaluronic matrix as previously described, and the epidermal autograft Laserskin. It was proven well tolerated and effective in the treatment of 9 diabetic ulcers of the lower limbs.88 In a larger retrospective study, 70.3% of 401 diabetic ulcers treated with TissueTech Autograft System healed within less than 1 year. One-year healing rates were also high in pressure wounds (71.4%) and posttraumatic ulcers (65.0%) and slightly smaller in arterial (50.4%), venous (56.4%), and arteriovenous ulcers (42.9%).89

Apligraf (Organogenesis, Canton, Mass.), also known as Graftskin, is a bilayer product based on the pioneer research of Bell et al.83,90 Neonatal fibroblasts are seeded onto a bovine type I collagen gel and neonatal keratinocytes are cultured on top of this dermal layer.91 Apligraf may be applied every 4–6 weeks. It is stored at room temperature. Disadvantages are its short shelf life of 5 days, its fragility, the risk of disease transfer due to its allogeneic constituents, and the high cost.4,92 In May 1998, Apligraf was approved by the FDA for the treatment of chronic venous and diabetic leg ulcers.72 Adding Apligraf to compression therapy for chronic venous ulcers doubled the number of healed wounds at 6 months.93 In chronic diabetic foot ulcers, 56% of patients in the Apligraf group had reached complete healing by 12 weeks compared with only 38% in the control group with moist gauze dressing treatment. Osteomyelitis incidence and progression to amputation were also significantly lower in the Apligraf group (osteomyelitis 2.7% vs 10.4%, amputation 6.3% vs 15.6%).94 Another diabetic wound study confirmed these results.95 In a prospective, multicentered open study, in 107 patients with partial- or full-thickness excisional wounds, single Apligraf application was proven to be safe. Graft persistence was good in 73.3% of patients at 1 week, reducing to 56.6% and 53.6% at 2 weeks and 1 month, respectively.96 Occasional use of Apligraf in other split-thickness skin defects, such as donor-site wounds,97 epidermolysis bullosa,98 and cutis aplasia,99 has been reported. Uneven pigmentation and contracture have also been seen.100

Orcel (Ortec International, New York, N.Y.) is a bilayered collagen sponge, comprising a top layer of pepsinized insoluble bovine collagen and a base layer of porous cross-linked type I bovine collagen. The top layer supports neonatal keratinocytes, and the porous layer is seeded with neonatal fibroblasts.57,92 It has been approved by the FDA to treat split-thickness wounds. There are few clinical data available to support its use. It is reported to be well tolerated, to promote faster healing, and to result in reduced scarring when compared with therapy with Biobrane.57

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

We started this article with a review of the different types of acellular scaffolds used in skin tissue engineering. Human decellularized dermis products such as AlloDerm and DermaMatrix seem to be the best option to date, with no other decellularized or synthetic scaffold being clinically proven to have better results. This is consistent with the plastic surgery principle of replacing like tissue with like tissue. It indeed seems logical that a dermal skin–derived matrix can easily function as a dermal matrix again and be a hospitable environment for fibroblast and macrophage infiltration and revascularization. Animal-derived acellular dermis would seem a good candidate as well; however, clinical results are more disappointing. Looking further into this phenomenon, we believe that this can partly be contributed to the fact that the listed animal-derived skin products are chemically cross-linked. It is widely known that chemical cross-linking induces a certain degree of cytotoxicity, and when reviewing acellular scaffolds, we noticed indeed a consistency between cross-linked products and their clinical inability to serve as a skin tissue engineering scaffold; results were usually poor or at least not as good and indications focused more toward purposes where strength and scaffold integrity are more desired than scaffold incorporation, such as for hernia repair, tendon replacement, or correction of soft-tissue defects with fillers.

When acellular scaffolds are seeded with fibroblasts, leading to the deposition of extracellular matrix proteins within the scaffold, the remodeled scaffolds may be less cytotoxic and more biocompatible to serve as a tissue engineering matrix. Further research and clinical studies with these products are required, but it is important to realize the associated huge cost of preseeding matrices with cell cultures. Also these quite advanced bioengineered skin substitutes still have their limitations when compared with human skin,101 and developments in certain fields are essential to reach full therapeutic potential. The lack of built-in vascular or nervous components makes grafts dependent on host neovascularization and reinnervation. Simultaneous growth of vascular networks within skin substitutes by coseeding grafts with endothelial cells or their progenitors looks promising. Various studies have shown facilitation of revascularization of the graft by host vasculature connecting to this prefabricated vascular network.102 There is a lack of human clinical trials, but improved outcome by enhanced graft take and improved cell survival is expected. Incorporation of other cells, such as dermal papilla cells for hair follicles,103 and sweat gland cells104 could be considered as well, especially when grafts are used in areas where these appendages are functionally or aesthetically important. Another disadvantage of current skin substitutes is their sole focus on substituting the epidermal and dermal skin layer while neglecting the subdermal fat layer. Skin mobility is hereby reduced and contour defects are often noticeable. To address this issue, attempts of culturing preadipocytes in skin grafts are being undertaken.105 Increasing complexity of skin substitutes addressing the deficiencies of skin substitutes over native human skin involves time delays needed for cell culture. It is also important to take the higher costs into account. To give an idea, AlloDerm and Integra both cost about 15–30 USD per square centimeter. Fibroblast-seeded products such as TransCyte and DermaMatrix cost in general about twice as much and Apligraf can even go to 4 times as much.106 Products where keratinocytes are added are even more expensive. Cheaper options are porcine-derived dermis or small intestine submucosa. It is important to take the costs into account when appointing indications.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

Various studies show that skin substitutes can reduce morbidity and improve functional outcome. They are considered a useful tool in plastic and reconstructive surgery practices. From this review of the literature, decellularized dermis seems to remain the best acellular skin substitute, with no other scaffold being clinically proven to gain better results yet. The plastic surgery principle of replacing like tissue with like tissue seems to be still standing for now. Chemically cross-linked products are most likely less suitable for skin substitutes; however, biocompatibility can be enhanced by preseeding them with fibroblasts to allow some natural scaffold remodeling before application. More research is, however, needed to fully reach the potential of cell seeded scaffolds while the rising production costs can form a serious issue as well.101

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We acknowledge the Victorian State Government’s Department of State Development, Business and Innovation’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Clark RA, Ghosh K, Tonnesen MG. Tissue engineering for cutaneous wounds. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127:1018–1029
2. Melman L, Jenkins ED, Hamilton NA, et al. Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2011;15:157–164
3. Butler CE, Burns NK, Campbell KT, et al. Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:368–376
4. Shores JT, Gabriel A, Gupta S. Skin substitutes and alternatives: a review. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007;20(9, Part 1):493–508–509–510
5. Sclafani AP, Romo T III, Jacono AA. Rejuvenation of the aging lip with an injectable acellular dermal graft (Cymetra). Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2002;4:252–257
6. Wainwright DJ. Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns. Burns. 1995;21:243–248
7. Munster AM, Smith-Meek M, Shalom A. Acellular allograft dermal matrix: immediate or delayed epidermal coverage? Burns. 2001;27:150–153
8. Achauer BM, VanderKam VM, Celikoz B, et al. Augmentation of facial soft-tissue defects with AlloDerm dermal graft. Ann Plast Surg. 1998;41:503–507
9. Nahabedian MY. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1743–1753
10. Butler CE, Langstein HN, Kronowitz SJ. Pelvic, abdominal, and chest wall reconstruction with AlloDerm in patients at increased risk for mesh-related complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1263–1275; discussion 1276–1277
11. Buinewicz B, Rosen B. Acellular cadaveric dermis (AlloDerm): a new alternative for abdominal hernia repair. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;52:188–194
12. Tobin HA, Karas ND. Lip augmentation using an AlloDerm graft. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;56:722–727
13. Pearl AW, Woo P, Ostrowski R, et al. A preliminary report on micronized AlloDerm injection laryngoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2002;112:990–996
14. Clemons JL, Myers DL, Aguilar VC, et al. Vaginal paravaginal repair with an AlloDerm graft. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1612–1618; discussion 1618–1619
15. Bello YM, Falabella AF, Eaglstein WH. Tissue-engineered skin. Current status in wound healing. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2:305–313
16. Gordley K, Cole P, Hicks J, et al. A comparative, long term assessment of soft tissue substitutes: AlloDerm, Enduragen, and Dermamatrix. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:849–850
17. Cole PD, Stal D, Sharabi SE, et al. A comparative, long-term assessment of four soft tissue substitutes. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:674–681
18. Bano F, Barrington JW, Dyer R. Comparison between porcine dermal implant (Permacol) and silicone injection (Macroplastique) for urodynamic stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005;16:147–150–discussion 150
19. MacLeod TM, Cambrey A, Williams G, et al. Evaluation of Permacol as a cultured skin equivalent. Burns. 2008;34:1169–1175
20. Hsu PW, Salgado CJ, Kent K, et al. Evaluation of porcine dermal collagen (Permacol) used in abdominal wall reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:1484–1489
21. Shabbir J, Bailoor D, Widdison AL. Treatment of anastomotic-vaginal fistula complicating colorectal resection using Permacol interposition in lieu of omentum. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007;22:845–846
22. Mahadavan L, Veeramootoo D, Daniels I. Early results of porcine collagen membrane (Permacol) in pelvic floor reconstruction following prone cylindrical PAE. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1165
23. Cheung EV, Silverio L, Sperling JW. Strategies in biologic augmentation of rotator cuff repair: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1476–1484
24. Saray A. Porcine dermal collagen (Permacol) for facial contour augmentation: preliminary report. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003;27:368–375
25. Pitkin L, Rimmer J, Lo S, et al. Aesthetic augmentation rhinoplasty with Permacol: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol. 2008;33:615–618
26. Healy CM, Boorman JG. Comparison of E-Z Derm and Jelonet dressings for partial skin thickness burns. Burns Incl Therm Inj. 1989;15:52–54
27. Troy J, Karlnoski R, Downes K, et al. The use of EZ Derm® in partial-thickness burns: an institutional review of 157 patients. Eplasty. 2013;13:e14
28. Chiu T, Burd A. “Xenograft” dressing in the treatment of burns. Clin Dermatol. 2005;23:419–423
29. Vanstraelen P. Comparison of calcium sodium alginate (KALTOSTAT) and porcine xenograft (E-Z DERM) in the healing of split-thickness skin graft donor sites. Burns. 1992;18:145–148
30. Badylak SF. The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3587–3593
31. Hodde JP, Ernst DM, Hiles MC. An investigation of the long-term bioactivity of endogenous growth factor in OASIS Wound Matrix. J Wound Care. 2005;14:23–25
32. Mostow EN, Haraway GD, Dalsing M, et al.OASIS Venus Ulcer Study Group. Effectiveness of an extracellular matrix graft (OASIS Wound Matrix) in the treatment of chronic leg ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41:837–843
33. Romanelli M, Dini V, Bertone M, et al. OASIS Wound Matrix versus Hyaloskin in the treatment of difficult-to-heal wounds of mixed arterial/venous aetiology. Int Wound J. 2007;4:3–7
34. Niezgoda JA, Van Gils CC, Frykberg RG, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing OASIS Wound Matrix to Regranex Gel for diabetic ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2005;18(5, Part 1):258–266
35. Bose B. Burn wound dressing with human amniotic membrane. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1979;61:444–447
36. Qader AR, Rasul FK. Evaluation of using amniotic membrane dressing in superficial burns. J Sulaimani Medical College. 2011;1:1–11
37. Vats A, Tolley NS, Polak JM, et al. Scaffolds and biomaterials for tissue engineering: a review of clinical applications. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2003;28:165–172
38. Zhong SP, Zhang YZ, Lim CT. Tissue scaffolds for skin wound healing and dermal reconstruction. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2010;2:510–525
39. Wang Y, Kim HJ, Vunjak-Novakovic G, et al. Stem cell-based tissue engineering with silk biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2006;27:6064–6082
40. Daamen WF, van Moerkerk HT, Hafmans T, et al. Preparation and evaluation of molecularly-defined collagen-elastin-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2003;24:4001–4009
41. Lee CH, Singla A, Lee Y. Biomedical applications of collagen. Int J Pharm. 2001;221:1–22
42. Price RD, Berry MG, Navsaria HA. Hyaluronic acid: the scientific and clinical evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:1110–1119
43. Debelle L, Tamburro AM. Elastin: molecular description and function. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 1999;31:261–272
44. Lamberg SI, Stoolmiller AC. Glycosaminoglycans. A biochemical and clinical review. J Invest Dermatol. 1974;63:433–449
45. West DC, Shaw DM, Lorenz P, et al. Fibrotic healing of adult and late gestation fetal wounds correlates with increased hyaluronidase activity and removal of hyaluronan. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 1997;29:201–210
46. Mast BA, Haynes JH, Krummel TM, et al. In vivo degradation of fetal wound hyaluronic acid results in increased fibroplasia, collagen deposition, and neovascularization. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89:503–509
47. Zavan B, Cortivo R, Tonello C, et al. Gland cell cultures into 3D hyaluronan-based scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003;14:727–729
48. Caravaggi C, De Giglio R, Pritelli C, et al. HYAFF 11-based autologous dermal and epidermal grafts in the treatment of noninfected diabetic plantar and dorsal foot ulcers: a prospective, multicenter, controlled, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2853–2859
49. Brown LF, Dubin D, Lavigne L, et al. Macrophages and fibroblasts express embryonic fibronectins during cutaneous wound healing. Am J Pathol. 1993;142:793–801
50. Ma L, Gao C, Mao Z, et al. Collagen/chitosan porous scaffolds with improved biostability for skin tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2003;24:4833–4841
51. Ono I, Tateshita T, Inoue M. Effects of a collagen matrix containing basic fibroblast growth factor on wound contraction. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;48:621–630
52. Dai NT, Williamson MR, Khammo N, et al. Composite cell support membranes based on collagen and polycaprolactone for tissue engineering of skin. Biomaterials. 2004;25:4263–4271
53. Almany L, Seliktar D. Biosynthetic hydrogel scaffolds made from fibrinogen and polyethylene glycol for 3D cell cultures. Biomaterials. 2005;26:2467–2477
54. Bezwada RS, Jamiolkowski DD, Lee IY, et al. Monocryl suture, a new ultra-pliable absorbable monofilament suture. Biomaterials. 1995;16:1141–1148
55. Brown RP. Knotting technique and suture materials. Br J Surg. 1992;79:399–400
56. Hansbrough JF, Zapata-Sirvent R, Carroll WJ, et al. Clinical experience with Biobrane biosynthetic dressing in the treatment of partial thickness burns. Burns Incl Therm Inj. 1984;10:415–419
57. Still J, Glat P, Silverstein P, et al. The use of a collagen sponge/living cell composite material to treat donor sites in burn patients. Burns. 2003;29:837–841
58. Phillips LG, Robson MC, Smith DJ, et al. Uses and abuses of a biosynthetic dressing for partial skin thickness burns. Burns. 1989;15:254–256
59. Kumar RJ, Kimble RM, Boots R, et al. Treatment of partial-thickness burns: a prospective, randomized trial using TransCyte. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74:622–626
60. Barret JP, Dziewulski P, Ramzy PI, et al. Biobrane versus 1% silver sulfadiazine in second-degree pediatric burns. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:62–65
61. Cassidy C, St Peter SD, Lacey S, et al. Biobrane versus DuoDerm for the treatment of intermediate thickness burns in children: a prospective, randomized trial. Burns. 2005;31:890–893
62. Feldman DL, Rogers A, Karpinski RH. A prospective trial comparing Biobrane, DuoDerm and xeroform for skin graft donor sites. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;173:1–5
63. Oostema JA, Ray DJ. Evidence-based emergency medicine: clinical synopsis. No clear winner among dressings for partial-thickness burns. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:298–299
64. Burke JF, Yannas IV, Quinby WC Jr, et al. Successful use of a physiologically acceptable artificial skin in the treatment of extensive burn injury. Ann Surg. 1981;194:413–428
65. Jeschke MG, Rose C, Angele P, et al. Development of new reconstructive techniques: use of Integra in combination with fibrin glue and negative-pressure therapy for reconstruction of acute and chronic wounds. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:525–530
66. Klein MB, Engrav LH, Holmes JH, et al. Management of facial burns with a collagen/glycosaminoglycan skin substitute-prospective experience with 12 consecutive patients with large, deep facial burns. Burns. 2005;31:257–261
67. Stern R, McPherson M, Longaker MT. Histologic study of artificial skin used in the treatment of full-thickness thermal injury. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11:7–13
68. Fitton AR, Drew P, Dickson WA. The use of a bilaminate artificial skin substitute (Integra) in acute resurfacing of burns: an early experience. Br J Plast Surg. 2001;54:208–212
69. Orgill DP, Butler C, Regan JF, et al. Vascularized collagen-glycosaminoglycan matrix provides a dermal substrate and improves take of cultured epithelial autografts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:423–429
70. Truong AT, Kowal-Vern A, Latenser BA, et al. Comparison of dermal substitutes in wound healing utilizing a nude mouse model. J Burns Wounds. 2005;4:e4
71. Mansbridge J, Liu K, Patch R, et al. Three-dimensional fibroblast culture implant for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: metabolic activity and therapeutic range. Tissue Eng. 1998;4:403–414
72. Parenteau N. Skin: the first tissue-engineered products. Sci Am. 1999;280:83–84
73. Purdue GF, Hunt JL, Still JM Jr, et al. A multicenter clinical trial of a biosynthetic skin replacement, Dermagraft-TC, compared with cryopreserved human cadaver skin for temporary coverage of excised burn wounds. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1997;18(1, Part 1):52–57
74. Cooper ML, Hansbrough JF, Spielvogel RL, et al. In vivo optimization of a living dermal substitute employing cultured human fibroblasts on a biodegradable polyglycolic acid or polyglactin mesh. Biomaterials. 1991;12:243–248
75. Hansbrough JF, Doré C, Hansbrough WB. Clinical trials of a living dermal tissue replacement placed beneath meshed, split-thickness skin grafts on excised burn wounds. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1992;13:519–529
76. Hanft JR, Surprenant MS. Healing of chronic foot ulcers in diabetic patients treated with a human fibroblast-derived dermis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2002;41:291–299
77. Gentzkow GD, Iwasaki SD, Hershon KS, et al. Use of dermagraft, a cultured human dermis, to treat diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 1996;19:350–354
78. Marston WA, Hanft J, Norwood P, et al.Dermagraft Diabetic Foot Ulcer Study Group. The efficacy and safety of Dermagraft in improving the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results of a prospective randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1701–1705
79. Flasza M, Kemp P, Shering D, et al. Development and manufacture of an investigational human living dermal equivalent (ICX-SKN). Regen Med. 2007;2:903–918
80. Boyd M, Flasza M, Johnson PA, et al. Integration and persistence of an investigational human living skin equivalent (ICX-SKN) in human surgical wounds. Regen Med. 2007;2:363–370
81. Stark HJ, Willhauck MJ, Mirancea N, et al. Authentic fibroblast matrix in dermal equivalents normalises epidermal histogenesis and dermoepidermal junction in organotypic co-culture. Eur J Cell Biol. 2004;83:631–645
82. Marcacci M, Berruto M, Brocchetta D, et al. Articular cartilage engineering with Hyalograft C: 3-year clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;435:96–105
83. Bell E, Ehrlich HP, Buttle DJ, et al. Living tissue formed in vitro and accepted as skin-equivalent tissue of full thickness. Science. 1981;211:1052–1054
84. Hansbrough JF, Boyce ST, Cooper ML, et al. Burn wound closure with cultured autologous keratinocytes and fibroblasts attached to a collagen-glycosaminoglycan substrate. JAMA. 1989;262:2125–2130
85. Boyce ST, Medrano EE, Abdel-Malek Z, et al. Pigmentation and inhibition of wound contraction by cultured skin substitutes with adult melanocytes after transplantation to athymic mice. J Invest Dermatol. 1993;100:360–365
86. Boyce ST, Goretsky MJ, Greenhalgh DG, et al. Comparative assessment of cultured skin substitutes and native skin autograft for treatment of full-thickness burns. Ann Surg. 1995;222:743–752
87. Boyce ST, Kagan RJ, Greenhalgh DG, et al. Cultured skin substitutes reduce requirements for harvesting of skin autograft for closure of excised, full-thickness burns. J Trauma. 2006;60:821–829
88. Monami M, Vivarelli M, Desideri CM, et al. Autologous skin fibroblast and keratinocyte grafts in the treatment of chronic foot ulcers in aging type 2 diabetic patients. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2011;101:55–58
89. Uccioli LTissueTech Autograph System Italian Study Group. . A clinical investigation on the characteristics and outcomes of treating chronic lower extremity wounds using the tissuetech autograft system. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2003;2:140–151
90. Nerem RM. Regenerative medicine: the emergence of an industry. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7(Suppl 6):S771–S775
91. Wilkins LM, Watson SR, Prosky SJ, et al. Development of a bilayered living skin construct for clinical applications. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1994;43:747–756
92. Shevchenko RV, James SL, James SE. A review of tissue-engineered skin bioconstructs available for skin reconstruction. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7:229–258
93. Falanga V, Sabolinski M. A bilayered living skin construct (APLIGRAF) accelerates complete closure of hard-to-heal venous ulcers. Wound Repair Regen. 1999;7:201–207
94. Veves A, Falanga V, Armstrong DG, et al.Apligraf Diabetic Foot Ulcer Study. Graftskin, a human skin equivalent, is effective in the management of noninfected neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:290–295
95. Edmonds MEuropean and Australian Apligraf Diabetic Foot Ulcer Study Group. . Apligraf in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2009;8:11–18
96. Eaglstein WH, Alvarez OM, Auletta M, et al. Acute excisional wounds treated with a tissue-engineered skin (Apligraf). Dermatol Surg. 1999;25:195–201
97. Muhart M, McFalls S, Kirsner RS, et al. Behavior of tissue-engineered skin: a comparison of a living skin equivalent, autograft, and occlusive dressing in human donor sites. Arch Dermatol. 1999;135:913–918
98. Fivenson DP, Scherschun L, Cohen LV. Apligraf in the treatment of severe mitten deformity associated with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:584–588
99. Bui D, Ikeda C. Reconstruction of aplasia cutis congenita (group V) of the trunk in a newborn. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:2119–2120
100. Simman R. Reconstruction aplasia cutis congenita (group V) of the trunk in a newborn. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1103
101. Supp DM. Skin substitutes for burn wound healing: current and future approaches. Expert Rev Dermatol. 2011;6:217–227
102. Hendrickx B, Vranckx JJ, Luttun A. Cell-based vascularization strategies for skin tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2011;17:13–24
103. Qiao J, Zawadzka A, Philips E, et al. Hair follicle neogenesis induced by cultured human scalp dermal papilla cells. Regen Med. 2009;4:667–676
104. Huang S, Xu Y, Wu C, et al. In vitro constitution and in vivo implantation of engineered skin constructs with sweat glands. Biomaterials. 2010;31:5520–5525
105. Keck M, Haluza D, Lumenta DB, et al. Construction of a multi-layer skin substitute: simultaneous cultivation of keratinocytes and preadipocytes on a dermal template. Burns. 2011;37:626–630
106. Jones I, Currie L, Martin R. A guide to biological skin substitutes. Br J Plast Surg. 2002;55:185–193
© 2015 American Society of Plastic Surgeons