Efficacy and Complications Associated with Acellular Dermal Substitute Use in the Treatment of Acute Burns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Over several decades, skin substitutes have become an essential tool in acute burn surgery, particularly in major burns, where scarce donor tissues can limit the availability of autografts. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy, complication rates, and long-term outcomes of acellular dermal substitutes in acute burns and compare these to conventional skin grafting methods of coverage. A search of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, and observational studies was conducted. Following screening, nine RCTs and seven observational studies fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes, which were graft take and incidence of infection, found no significant difference between the substitute and control procedures in a meta-analysis (p = 0.37 and p = 0.87, respectively). For our secondary outcomes, the studies were analyzed via narrative synthesis, which reported variable rates of graft loss and duration of acute hospital stay, from which definitive conclusions could not be drawn due to the heterogeneity in reporting. Despite a high risk of bias in the included studies, the evidence reviewed suggests that the treatment of an acute burn with a substitute may improve scar quality when compared to conventional grafting. This review therefore suggests that acellular dermal substitutes offer a viable method for staging the closure of deep partial- and full-thickness acute burns, although more robust RCTs with less heterogeneity are needed to support these conclusions.

The effectiveness of the psychosocial empowerment program in early adjustment among adult burn survivors

“…Despite promising evidence for existing psychosocial interventions, current approaches have significant limitations, including a lack of standardization, limited accessibility and generalizability for many patients, high resource demands, and questionable sustainability over time [ 35 – 37 ]. In particular, there are empirically tested theory-driven psychosocial empowerment programs for burn survivors transitioning from the hospital to home [ 38 ].…”