722 Select Survey of Human Cadaver Skin Allograft Utilization by 21 Senior Academic Burn Surgeons
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction As of 2022, cryopreserved human cadaver skin allograft remains the gold standard by which all other skin substitutes used for burn care are compared. The 2015 Taiwan Color Dust Explosion burn mass casualty engendered the transfer of emergency tranches of skin allograft from reserves in both the US and EU to Taiwan. HHS/ASPR/BARDA/CBRN led an after-action fact-finding mission to Taiwan and concluded that skin allograft would still play a central role as a safety net in US national burn care preparedness, even as BARDA invested in the development of other burn medical countermeasures that would be part of the preparedness strategy. However, before investments in a skin allograft based national strategy could be built, it was critical that the leaders of the Disaster Committee and Organization and Delivery of Burn Care (ODBC) Committee of the American Burn Association (ABA) commission a survey to verify current practice patterns of senior academic burn surgeons on the use of skin allograft. Methods The committee chairs curated a list of 21 leading academic burn surgeons in North America. These surgeons’ credentials included having been an ABA president, a member of the ABA Board of Trustees, or having chaired a standing committee of the ABA. All 21 surgeons were actively practicing burn care daily. The survey contained 18 questions and was intentionally kept brief (Survey to be provided as Appendix). Results Of the 21 surgeons selected, there was 100% participation and completion of the survey. Most were in practice >15 years (62%) and manage >200 patients surgically per year (71%). The predominant use of allograft is to temporize the wound bed when there are inadequate donor sites (48% “Almost Always”). It is “Often” (48%) used to temporize wound beds prior to autografting. However, most are looking for alternatives to allograft (43% “Sometimes”, 43% “Often”). With ongoing development of skin substitutes, most indicated their allograft use will likely decrease, with only 19% indicating “Probably Not”. Conclusions Human skin allograft continues to play a central role in surgical burn care management. For the foreseeable future, new technologies are not likely to displace allograft use but rather blend with its use. This brief, select survey is not powered but provides a snapshot of the current role of skin allograft. In the future, we may conduct a broader survey to obtain a validated and more granular view of the use of allograft in modern burn care. Applicability of Research to Practice Armed with this information, the US Federal Government acted to increase preparedness after a burn mass casualty. In February 2022, a Request for Proposals for a large vendor-managed inventory of human cryopreserved skin allograft was answered by two separate tissue banks. As of September 2022, $38M was awarded to two partners for procurement and expansion of a vendor managed inventory of cryopreserved human skin allograft to ensure preparedness for rapid response to a burn mass casualty incident.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».