3.8 Article

High Expansion Auxetic Skin Graft Simulants for Severe Burn Injury Mitigation

期刊

EUROPEAN BURN JOURNAL
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 108-120

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ebj4010011

关键词

biaxial testing; tissue simulants; stress analysis; auxetics; skin grafts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate the expansion potential of skin grafts to overcome the limitations of split-thickness grafts for large and severe burn injuries. By developing skin graft simulants and conducting relevant tests, it was found that auxetic skin graft designs with novel incisions have better expansion performance, which can be beneficial for large skin cover and burn wound healing.
Burn injuries are commonly treated with split-thickness skin grafting. However, low expansions offered by spilt-thickness skin grafting inhibit the treatment of large and severe burn injuries when limited donor skin is available. To overcome this gap, in this work, it was attempted to study the expansion potential of skin grafts with novel auxetic incisions with rotating rectangle (RR), honeycomb (HC), alternating slit (AS), H-shaped (HS), Y-shaped (YS), and I-shaped (IS) unit cells, through development of skin graft simulants. Clinically relevant biaxial load testing was conducted to estimate the stress-strain response, void area, and meshing ratio. Moreover, hyperelastic constitutive models were employed to characterize the non-linear biomechanical behavior of the skin graft simulants. The maximum void area increase was observed in the HS skin graft simulant, indicating low skin cover. Overall, the IS auxetic skin graft design exhibited meshing ratio higher than traditional grafts (>3:1), low void area and stresses, which can be beneficial for large skin cover and burn wound healing. With further optimization and clinical tests, the auxetic skin graft designs may find a place with the graft manufacturers for fabrication of grafts with better surgical outcomes for severe burn injuries.

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

3.8
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