Comparison Between Human Amniotic/Chorionic Membrane and Cryopreserved Allografts in the Treatment of Genital Burns. Issue 6 (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Puyana, Salomon; Ruiz, Samuel; Elkbuli, Adel; Bernal, Eileen; McKenney, Mark; Young, Elizabeth; Lim, Rizal; Askari, Morad; Mir, Haaris
• Is Part Of: Annals of plastic surgery. Volume 85:Issue 6(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: amniotic membrane -- genital burns -- quality outcomes -- patient safety; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.95205
• DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002414
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-7043

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Genital burns have devastating effects on patient and have been classified by the American Burn Association as major burn injury. The management of these injuries continues to challenge reconstructive surgeons. Cryopreserved skin allografts have been successfully used to manage partial-thickness skin burns; however, dehydrated human amniotic/chorionic membrane (DHACM) represents novel technology. Dehydrated human amniotic/chorionic membrane outcomes have not been sufficiently studied to guide its use on genital burns. The objective of this study was to report on the outcomes of dehydrated amniotic membrane as a biologic skin dressing on genital burns injury compared with cryopreserved allografts. Methods: Retrospective review of data collected from our institutional burn registry from 2012 to 2017. The study population included patients with partial-thickness genital burns admitted between 2012 and 2017 treated with either dehydrated human amniotic/chorionic membrane or cryopreserved allografts. Demographic characteristics and outcome measures were compared between the 2 groups. Results: Thirty patients with genital burns who received DHACM skin and cryopreserved allografts were included in the analysis. The mean age for the DHACM group was 27.6 years compared with 33.5 years for the cryopreserved group. The mean total body surface area was 3.8% in the DHACM group compared with 7.2% in the cryopreserved group ( P = non-significant (ns)). The mean injury severity score was not significantly different between groups. Patients receiving cadaveric allografts had a higher number of skin substitute surgical reapplications as compared with the DHACM group (28% vs 0%, P ⩽ 0.05). All patients who received DHACM skin substitutes healed by 2 weeks postoperative compared with 76% of patients who received cryopreserved skin allografts ( P = 0.03, χ 2 ). Conclusions: Dehydrated amniotic membrane skin substitutes are a safe alternative in the treatment of genital burns. Its use achieves comparable benefits with no major significant difference in terms of complication, supporting the safety of amniotic membrane to treat genital burns.