Elsevier

Burns

Volume 40, Issue 3, May 2014, Pages 408-415
Burns

Porcine xenografts vs. (cryopreserved) allografts in the management of partial thickness burns: Is there a clinical difference?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2013.08.020Get rights and content

Abstract

Porcine xenografts and cryopreserved allografts are used for the management of partial thickness burns and both biological materials have strong advocates with regard to clinical performance, the possibility of disease transfer from donor to recipient and other clinical aspects. A literature analysis was performed in an attempt to investigate whether true (statistically significant) differences exist on clinical performance and on other determinants for use.

Comparing the results of this study with a similar, previously published study performed on possible differences amongst different types of allograft in the management of partial thickness burns, both allografts and porcine xenograft seem to perform equally well clinically with regard to healing related outcomes. In addition, the risk of disease transfer, in real life, was shown to be minimal. Consequently, clinical aspects being equal, other aspects such as price and availability should be used to decide which material to use for the management of partial thickness burns.

Introduction

Biological dressings, xenografts as well as allografts, have been used for the management of burns for long while, with the first documented application going back several centuries [1]. Porcine skin is available as preserved skin (particularly with glutaraldehyde [2]), and as decellularised matrices [3] while it has also been combined with silver in an attempt to lower colonisation levels [4]. Skin allografts are available in different forms as well, with glycerol immersion and cryonic techniques most commonly used for preservation.

Both allografts and xenografts are used as dressings for partial thickness burns, as a temporary dressing in excised, non-grafted burns 5, 6 and as dressings for chronic lesions and non-thermal skin loss injuries 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Allografts are also used as cover dressings in excised and grafted full thickness burns [14] while xenografts are sometimes used on skin graft donor sites [15].

All biologic dressings are known to provide a series of properties that are beneficial for the patient and the wound [16]. When applied to partial-thickness wounds, all seem to increase the speed of healing when compared with traditional dressings 17, 18, 19.

Xenografts and (particularly) cryopreserved allografts (CPA) also have distinct differences and both types of biological dressings have strong advocates, predominantly with regard to viability and its (perceived) role in supporting wound healing, and the (potential for) disease transfer (Table 1).

A literature search was undertaken, aimed at analysing whether these differences are relevant for the clinic with regard to the management of partial thickness burns. Other aspects that might play a role in deciding on a certain type of graft, such as availability and pricing, also were investigated.

Section snippets

Search methods and search results

The databases of Pubmed, Medline, Google and the search engine of the Endnote X5 programme (Thompson Reuters, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were searched, focussing primarily on partial thickness burns, porcine skin, porcine derived matrix, preservation methods, as well as on related topics such as bacteriology (including disease transfer), cost, and outcomes, particularly healing, pain and long term results.

Articles on dressings made of the submucosa of the porcine small intestine were excluded (since it

Preservation methods, risks of disease transfer

Porcine skin is most commonly preserved with glutaraldehyde: its protein crosslinking properties have a biocidal and preservative effect on tissues, making xenografts more durable and safe [21] while killing the cells in the graft. (The lack of) viability does not seem to have a clinical impact: in a test with a rat recipient wound model, viable (fresh) vs. preserved porcine skin did not show any difference in clinical performance [22]. A study on clinical performance of allografts, preserved

Availability and costs

Skin allograft availability is limited by the number of donors, which is restricted [39] and unpredictable over time as well [40]. Cadaver skin also requires a designated and expensive infrastructure which has to include harvesting teams which have to be available at odd times, extensive culturing facilities, and a skin bank for preservation and storage. These are among the reasons why many regions in the world do have limited or no immediate access to cadaver skin [41]. Financial, cultural and

Clinical studies (Table 3)

Relatively few studies on clinical results of porcine skin in burn care have been published and in only two studies xenografts are compared directly to allografts, although healing (reepithelialisation) was not a study objective for either study 44, 45. Two xenograft studies were published in Chinese medical journals, with only the abstracts in English 46, 47.

Bacterial clearing of granulating wounds was shown to be similar for allografts and xenografts in a study with 16 patients [44]. In a

Discussion

All biological dressings share a number of properties: they protect the wound from fluid, protein and heat loss and from physical trauma, while providing pain relief and relatively fast (compared to more conventional materials) healing and reepithelialisation. Long term results (with regard to scarring and scar quality) are better than with conventional materials as well, among other reasons because these materials increase wound healing [57]. Both xenograft and cadaver skin have strong

Limitations

Given the long history of using allograft and xenografts in burn care, the number of (comparative) clinical trials is surprisingly small and for the two studies with the largest number of patients treated with porcine xenografts only an abstract is available in English. The lack of standardisation in trials with (biological) dressings is a major limitation of this, and any, literature review [61]. In the articles on porcine materials referenced here many crucial aspects, such as depth of a

Conclusion

In spite of the strong beliefs and perceptions amongst clinicians, no evidence was found showing that xenograft, their derivatives, or allografts perform better clinically in the management of partial thickness burns. All these materials provide rapid reepithelialisation, pain relief, protection of the wound and, generally, good long term results.

Therefore, clinical outcomes being equal, the decision of choosing one type of biological dressing over another has to be based on other aspects, such

Conflict of interest

The author, Michel Hermans, is a paid consultant for Mölnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden.

References (67)

  • H. Kobayashi et al.

    Cadaveric skin allograft-associated cytomegalovirus transmission in a mouse model of thermal injury

    Clin Immunol

    (1999)
  • J.A. Clarke

    HIV transmission and skin grafts

    Lancet

    (1987)
  • E. Pianigiani et al.

    Prevalence of skin allograft discards as a result of serological and molecular microbiological screening in a regional skin bank in Italy

    Burns

    (2006)
  • L. Csonge et al.

    Antibiotics in the preservation of allograft and xenograft skin

    Burns

    (1995)
  • T. Chiu et al.

    “Xenograft” dressing in the treatment of burns

    Clin Dermatol

    (2005)
  • R.J. Kagan et al.

    Human skin banking

    Clin Lab Med

    (2005)
  • F. Choukairi et al.

    Re: xenoderm dressing in the treatment of second degree burns

    Burns

    (2008)
  • S.N. Hosseini et al.

    Xenoderm dressing in the treatment of second degree burns

    Burns

    (2007)
  • I. Rappaport et al.

    Early use of xenografts as a biologic dressing in burn trauma

    Am J Surg

    (1970)
  • F. Duteille et al.

    Management of 2nd-degree facial burns using the Versajet((R)) hydrosurgery system and xenograft: a prospective evaluation of 20 cases

    Burns

    (2012)
  • C.M. Healy et al.

    Comparison of E-Z Derm and Jelonet dressings for partial skin thickness burns

    Burns Incl Therm Inj

    (1989)
  • X. Feng et al.

    Control of hypertrophic scar from inception by using xenogenic (porcine) acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to cover deep second degree burn

    Burns

    (2006)
  • A. Eldad et al.

    Cryopreserved cadaveric allografts for treatment of unexcised partial thickness flame burns: clinical experience with 12 patients

    Burns

    (1997)
  • D. Bravo et al.

    Effect of storage and preservation methods on viability in transplantable human skin allografts

    Burns

    (2000)
  • H. Ben-Bassat et al.

    How long can cryopreserved skin be stored to maintain adequate graft performance?

    Burns

    (2001)
  • H.J. Klasen

    History of burns

    (2004)
  • I. Schechter

    Prolonged survival of glutaraldehyde-treated skin homografts

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

    (1971)
  • R.A. Ersek et al.

    Maximizing wound healing with silver-impregnated porcine xenograft

    Todays Nurse

    (1990)
  • E. Lineen et al.

    Biologic dressing in burns

    J Craniofac Surg

    (2008)
  • R.A. Ersek et al.

    Porcine xenografts in the treatment of pressure ulcers

    Ann Plast Surg

    (1980)
  • R.A. Ersek et al.

    The most indolent ulcers of the skin treated with porcine xenografts and silver ions

    Surg Gynecol Obstet

    (1984)
  • A.V. Kaisary

    A temporary biological dressing in the treatment of varicose ulcers and skin defects

    Postgrad Med J

    (1977)
  • L. Klein et al.

    Biological skin covers in treatment of two cases of the Lyell's syndrome

    Ann Transplant

    (1997)
  • Cited by (61)

    • Burn Dressings and Skin Substitutes

      2020, Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This study was supported by Mölnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden.

    View full text