Biological Dressings for Skin Graft Donor Sites

Comparison of Biobrane and Scarlet Red Dressings for Treatment of Donor Site Wounds

“…Such dressings appear to decrease healing time by creating a wound environment conducive to epithelial growth,910 in contrast to topical antimicrobial agents that may retard epithelialization.11 Porcine xenograft has been reported effective for covering donor sites by some re¬ searchers.1112 One report has claimed that the xenograft use resulted in a 35% incidence of increased inflammation and delayed repair of the donor site, with apparent incorpora¬ tion of xenograft into the wound. 13 Miller,14 however, has reported that coverage of donor sites with allografts leads to frequent rejection reactions and conversion to fullthickness injuries.…”

Experimental Skin Grafts and Transplantation Immunity

“…Salisbury, Wilmore, Silverstein, and Pruitt (1973) have cautioned against the apillication of porcine skin as temporary biologic dressings of skin graft donor sites because the incorporation of porcine collagen in the subepithelial area of the donor site may be detrimental. They found a significant incidence of donor site inflammation and delayed repair following the application of porcine xenografts.…”

In vitro and in vivo characteristics of frozen/thawed neonatal pig split-skin strips: A novel biologically active dressing for areas of severe, acute or chronic skin loss

“…Adult porcine skin apparently has all the features of an ideal wound protective cover, such as tensile strength; tissue adherence; flexibility; water-vapour permeability; heat retention; a human skin-like histological structure (18) unless deeply altered by chemical treatments; anti-bacterial and pain relieving effects; lack of antigenicity; no toxicity; low cost; and long shelf-life (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29). Moreover, adult porcine skin xenografts were never vascularised (15,18,20,30,31), even though being at times partly included within the healing tissue (32). Despite a slight cellular infiltration at the wound bed/xenograft boundary, no significant levels of anti-donor pig antibodies were induced and no immunological reaction or rejection evoked (15,33).…”