Inability to determine tissue health is main indication of allograft use in intermediate extent burns. Issue 8 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fletcher, John L.; Cancio, Leopoldo C.; Sinha, Indranil; Leung, Kai P.; Renz, Evan M.; Chan, Rodney K.
• Is Part Of: Burns. Volume 41:Issue 8(2015)
• Page Start: 1862
• Page End: 1867
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Cryopreserved allograft skin -- Autograft failure -- Tissue health -- Depth of excision; Burns and scalds -- Periodicals; 617.11
• DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2015.09.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-4179

Abstract

Highlights: Allograft prepares recipient site and test recipient viability prior to auto-grafting. Allograft to test recipient site on face prevents over-debridement. Allograft can be used commonly in intermediate severity burns. Inability to determine tissue health is main indication of allograft use in burns. Abstract: Introduction: Cutaneous allograft is commonly used in the early coverage of excised burns when autograft is unavailable. However, allograft is also applied in intermediate-extent burns (25–50%), during cases in which it is possible to autograft. In this population, there is a paucity of data on the indications for allograft use. This study explores the indications for allograft usage in moderate size burns. Methods: Under an IRB-approved protocol, patients admitted to our burn unit between March 2003 and December 2010 were identified through a review of the burn registry. Data on allograft use, total burn surface area, operation performed, operative intent, number of operations, intensive care unit length of stay, and overall length of stay were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations, except where noted. Results: In the study period, 146 patients received allograft during their acute hospitalization. Twenty-five percent of allograft recipients sustained intermediate-extent burns. Patients with intermediate-extent burns received allograft later in their hospitalization than those with large-extent (50–75% TBSA) burns (6.8 days vs. 3.4 days, p = 0.01). Allografted patients with intermediate-extent burns underwent more operations (10.8 vs. 6.1, p = 0.002) and had longer hospitalizations (78.3 days vs. 40.9 days, p < 0.001) than non-allografted patients, when controlled for TBSA. Clinical rationale for placement of allograft in this population included autograft failure, uncertain depth of excision, lack of autograft donor site, and wound complexity. When uncertain depth of excision was the indication, allograft was universally applied onto the face. In half of allografted intermediate-extent burn patients the inability to identify a viable recipient bed was the ultimate reason for allograft use. Conclusions: Unlike large body surface area burns, allograft skin use in intermediate-extent injury occurs later in the hospitalization and is driven by the inability to determine wound bed suitability for autograft application. Allograft application can be utilized to test recipient site viability in cases of autograft failure or uncertain depth of excision.