Evaluation of Tissue-Engineered Skin (Human Skin Substitute) and Secondary Intention Healing in the Treatment of Full Thickness Wounds after Mohs Micrographic or Excisional Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human Skin Substitute (Apligraf, Organogenesis, Inc., Canton, MA) is a bi-layered tissue-engineered living biological dressing developed from neonatal foreskin. It consists of a bovine collagen matrix containing human fibroblasts with an overlying sheet of stratified human epithelium containing living human keratinocytes. Human Skin Substitute (HSS) appears to be immunologically inert, and has shown usefulness in the treatment of chronic and acute wounds. OBJECTIVE: Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HSS in the treatment of full-thickness wounds in a prospective case series. Secondary objectives were to determine the rate of complete wound reepithelialization, incidence of complete wound healing, pain at wound site, overall cosmetic outcome, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Fourteen patients were enrolled in the study, of which 12 were evaluable. HSS was applied in a blinded fashion to 6 of the patients immediately following Mohs or excisional surgery for skin cancer. The remaining 6 patients were allowed to heal by secondary intention. Both groups were evaluated at weekly appointments until complete reepithelialization occurred. During each evaluation, wound quality was assessed through the Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale by the investigator and an independent blinded dermatologist. The investigator, blinded observer, and patient further evaluated the cosmetic outcome of the wound through the use of a Visual Analog Scale over a 6-month period. RESULTS: HSS patients and secondary intention patients were equivalent in comorbid factors such as pain, erythema, edema, exudate, infection, or hematoma between the groups. The incidence of complete wound healing at 6 months was 100% for both groups. Both groups also appeared to heal at similar rates, as defined by the complete reepithelialization of the wound. HSS patients ultimately resulted in more pliable and less vascular wounds as defined by the Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale. Patient satisfaction with cosmetic outcome in both groups was positive at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: HSS appears to be a safe, well-tolerated biological dressing with equivalent comorbid factors to secondary intention healing. HSS, however, seems to produce a more pliable and less vascular scar than those developed through healing by secondary intention. HSS also appears to produce more satisfactory cosmetic results when compared to secondary intention healing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".