Head and Neck Wound Reconstruction Using Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix Versus Collagen-Chondroitin Silicone Bilayer.
EplastyPub Date : 2022-08-02eCollection Date: 2022-01-01
Shannon S Wu, Michael Wells, Mona Ascha, Radhika Duggal, James Gatherwright, Kyle Chepla
{"title":"Head and Neck Wound Reconstruction Using Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix Versus Collagen-Chondroitin Silicone Bilayer.","authors":"Shannon S Wu, Michael Wells, Mona Ascha, Radhika Duggal, James Gatherwright, Kyle Chepla","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Head and neck reconstruction is challenging because of the functional requirements of movement, sensation, and cosmesis of this highly visible region. This study is the first to compare Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue head and neck wounds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective review included adults who underwent wound reconstruction of the head/neck with either BTM or CCS between 2015 and 2020. Patient-level data, complications, and closure rates were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 15 patients: 5 who received BTM and 10 who received CCS. Mean age at dermal template placement was 55 (range, 28-79) years. Race, sex, smoking status, medical comorbidities, defect size, radiation history, prior surgeries, and follow-up time were not significantly different between groups. Wound etiologies for BTM and CCS included burn (40% vs 60%), trauma (20% vs 20%), surgical wounds (20% vs 20%), and skin cancer (20% vs 0%), respectively (<i>P</i> = .026). Skin grafts were placed in 8 (80%) wounds after CCS placement, compared with 3 (60%) after BTM (<i>P</i> = .670). Template reapplication was required in 2 (40%) BTM wounds and 3 (30%) CCS wounds (<i>P</i> = 1.0). Infection, hematoma, and seroma were comparable between groups, although skin graft failure was higher in the CCS group at 3 (37.5%) compared with 0 for BTM (<i>P</i> = .506). More secondary procedures were required after CCS placement (CCS, 1.9 ± 2.2; BTM, 0.9 ± 0.8; <i>P</i> = .090). Definitive closure in patients not lost to follow-up occurred in 4 (100%) BTM and 6 (75%) CCS cases (<i>P</i> = 1.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Head and neck wounds treated with BTM had comparable closure and complication rates as CCS bilayer and required fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts. These findings suggest that BTM is safe and efficacious for application in head and neck wounds and may be considered as an economical alternative.</p>","PeriodicalId":11687,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":" ","pages":"e31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9361342/pdf/eplasty-22-e31.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Head and neck reconstruction is challenging because of the functional requirements of movement, sensation, and cosmesis of this highly visible region. This study is the first to compare Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue head and neck wounds.
Methods: This retrospective review included adults who underwent wound reconstruction of the head/neck with either BTM or CCS between 2015 and 2020. Patient-level data, complications, and closure rates were compared.
Results: The review identified 15 patients: 5 who received BTM and 10 who received CCS. Mean age at dermal template placement was 55 (range, 28-79) years. Race, sex, smoking status, medical comorbidities, defect size, radiation history, prior surgeries, and follow-up time were not significantly different between groups. Wound etiologies for BTM and CCS included burn (40% vs 60%), trauma (20% vs 20%), surgical wounds (20% vs 20%), and skin cancer (20% vs 0%), respectively (P = .026). Skin grafts were placed in 8 (80%) wounds after CCS placement, compared with 3 (60%) after BTM (P = .670). Template reapplication was required in 2 (40%) BTM wounds and 3 (30%) CCS wounds (P = 1.0). Infection, hematoma, and seroma were comparable between groups, although skin graft failure was higher in the CCS group at 3 (37.5%) compared with 0 for BTM (P = .506). More secondary procedures were required after CCS placement (CCS, 1.9 ± 2.2; BTM, 0.9 ± 0.8; P = .090). Definitive closure in patients not lost to follow-up occurred in 4 (100%) BTM and 6 (75%) CCS cases (P = 1.0).
Conclusions: Head and neck wounds treated with BTM had comparable closure and complication rates as CCS bilayer and required fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts. These findings suggest that BTM is safe and efficacious for application in head and neck wounds and may be considered as an economical alternative.