MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single dose of 30 Gy of linear electron beam radiation was applied to the hind limb of nude mice before creating the skin lesion (area of 78.6 mm). Monolayer tissue-engineered skin substitutes (MTESSs) were prepared by entrapping cultured keratinocytes in fibrin matrix, and bilayer tissue-engineered skin substitutes (BTESSs) were prepared by entrapping keratinocytes and fibroblasts in separate layers. Bilayer tissue-engineered skin substitute and MTESS were implanted to the wound area. Gross appearance and wound area were analyzed to evaluate wound healing efficiency. Skin regeneration and morphological appearance were observed via histological and electron microscopy. Protein expressions of transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1), platelet-derived growth factor BB (PDGF-BB), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in skin regeneration were evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC).
RESULTS: Macroscopic observation revealed that at day 13, treatments with BTESS completely healed the irradiated wound, whereas wound sizes of 1.1 ± 0.05 and 6.8 ± 0.14 mm were measured in the MTESS-treated and untreated control groups, respectively. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) analysis showed formation of compact and organized epidermal and dermal layers in the BTESS-treated group, as compared with MTESS-treated and untreated control groups. Ultrastructural analysis indicates maturation of skin in BTESS-treated wound evidenced by formation of intermediate filament bundles in the dermal layer and low intercellular space in the epidermal layer. Expressions of TGF-β1, PDGF-BB, and VEGF were also higher in BTESS-treated wounds, compared with MTESS-treated wounds.
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that BTESS is the preferred treatment for irradiated wound ulcers.
METHODS: A retrospective review of burn cases in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia from 2010 to 2015 was conducted. Cases of major burns among pediatric patients grafted using the Meek technique were examined.
RESULTS: Twelve patients were grafted using the Meek technique. Ten (91.7%) patients were male, whereas 2 (8.3%) were female. The average age of patients was 6 years (range, 2-11 years). The average total body surface area was 35.4% (range, 15%-75%). Most burn mechanisms were due to flame injury (66.7%) as compared with scalds injury (16.7%) and chemical injury (16.7%). There was no mortality. All patients were completely grafted with a good donor site scar. The average graft take rate was 82.3%, although 8 cases had positive tissue cultures from the Meek-grafted areas. The average follow-up duration was 3.6 years (range, 1.1-6.7 years). Only 1 case developed contracture over minor joint.
CONCLUSIONS: The Meek technique is useful when there is a paucity of donor site in the pediatric group. The graft take is good, contracture formation is low, and this technique is cost-effective.
METHODS: This was a comparative case-control study done on patients in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (Hospital USM), requiring split-thickness skin grafting, whereby, the skin graft donor site was divided to almost equal halves, and applied with both gamat-based gel on one side, with Duoderm® hydrogel on the other side. The epithelialization of the wounds was observed and compared on days 10, 14 and 21. Pain score, and pruritus score were also observed. Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Paired t-test was used to test statistical significance accordingly.
RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in rates of epithelialization of wounds on days 10, 14 and 21 (p > 0.01). No significant difference was also seen in the pain score and pruritus score (p > 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: A gamat-based gel is comparable to conventional hydrogels in treatment of split-skin graft donor site. No adverse effects were observed in either group.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia to assess patients with burns between 10 to 40% total body surface area (TBSA) and with at least one year after injury. The Burn Specific Health Score-brief (BSHS-B) was utilized to compare the functional outcome whilst the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used for comparison on the scar outcome of the two skin grafting techniques.
RESULTS: Forty three patients (Meek,15; SSG,28) were included. The mean current age (years old) of Meek and SSG was 24.7 (range, 7-75) and 25.9 (range, 7-65) respectively. The mean TBSA (%) of the Meek group was 26.7 (range, 13-40) while that of the SSG group was 16.1 (range, 10-32). A simplified domain structure was used for the BSHS-B questionnaire. The work and sexuality subscale were analyzed separately due to missing data. There mean scores of affect and relations was higher in Meek compared to SSG (Meek, 3.86; SSG, 3.75; p > 0.05). Function domain was also better in Meek compared to SSG (Meek, 3.88; SSG, 3.73; p > 0.05). The Meek group displayed superior scar outcome compared to SSG as evidenced by the statistically significant difference in score for the pigmentation, pliability, height and total VSS score.
CONCLUSION: The Meek group showed more favorable BSHS-B scores compared to the SSG group. The scar outcome of the Meek technique is significantly superior to SSG. Therefore, the Meek technique is superior in the management of burns because the long term scar and functional outcome of this technique is better compared to conventional SSG.