4.4 Article

Application of the cultured epidermal autograft JACE® for treatment of severe burns: Results of a 6-year multicenter surveillance in Japan

期刊

BURNS
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 769-776

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2016.01.019

关键词

Burn; Grafting; Cultured epidermal autograft; Multicenter surveillance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In the 1970s, Green et al. developed a method that involved culturing keratinocyte sheets and used for treatment of burns. Since then, the take rate of cultured epidermal autograft (CEA) onto fascia, granulation tissue, or allografts has been extensively reported, while that on an artificial dermis in a large case series is not. Moreover, the contribution of CEA to patient survival has not been analyzed in a multicenter study. Methods: We conducted a 6-year multicenter surveillance on the application of the CEA JACE (R) for treatment of burns >30% total body surface area (TBSA) across 118 Japanese hospitals. This surveillance included 216 patients and 718 graft sites for efficacy analysis. The CEA take rate at 4 weeks after grafting was evaluated, and safety was monitored until 52 weeks. In addition, the survival curve obtained in this study and the data obtained from the Tokyo Burn Unit Association (TBUA) were compared. Results: The mean CEA take rates at week 4 were 66% (sites) and 68% (patients), and the rate on the artificial dermis was 65% for 226 sites. CEA application combined with wide split-thickness auto or patch autograft increased the CEA take rate. On comparison with the data obtained from the TBUA, which included data on individuals with burns of the same severity, CEA application was found to contribute to patient survival until 7 weeks after burn. Conclusions: We reported the take rate of CEA based on a 6-year multicenter surveillance. From our results, we found that the application of CEA is a useful treatment for the patients with extensive burns. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据