The application of cultured epithelial autografts improves survival in burns. Issue 3 (19th June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kym, Dohern; Yim, Haejun; Yoon, Jaechul; Yang, Hyeong‐Tae; Cho, Yong Suk; Hur, Jun; Chun, Wook; Kim, Jong‐Hyun
• Is Part Of: Wound repair and regeneration. Volume 23:Issue 3(2015)
• Page Start: 340
• Page End: 344
• Publication Date: 2015-06-19
• Subjects: Wound healing -- Periodicals; Regeneration (Biology) -- Periodicals; 617.14
• DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12279
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1067-1927

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>ABSTRACT</title> <p>This prospective observational study was performed to analyze the clinical outcomes of patients with massive burns treated using cultured epithelial autografts (CEAs) and to determine the association of this treatment with survival outcomes. During 2006–2013, total 177 massive‐burns subjects treated with (96 subjects) or without (81 subjects) CEAs. Data were analyzed using the independent <italic>t</italic> test or chi‐square test. Multivariate logistic regression, Kaplan–Meier survival, and Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the factors that influenced mortality. Age, percentage of total body surface area burned, incidence of inhalation injury, allograft‐application rate, Abbreviated Burn Severity Index score, length of hospital stay, and mortality significantly differed between the CEA and noncultured epithelial autograft groups. Mortality and other clinical parameters did not differ between the sheet‐type and spray‐type CEA groups. Allograft application (odds ratio, 4.44; <italic>p</italic> < 0.01) significantly influenced CEA application. The CEA group showed significantly higher survival rates (<italic>p</italic> = 0.05). Cultured epithelial autografting had a hazard ratio of 0.55 (<italic>p</italic> = 0.02) and 0.59 (<italic>p</italic> = 0.05) according to the uni‐ and multivariate Cox regression analysis, respectively. In conclusion, early and aggressive allograft application is required to facilitate CEA application. Furthermore, the use of CEAs was associated with a lower mortality, but this result should be interpreted with caution as the groups were not randomized.</p> </abstract>