Outcome comparison of the most commonly employed wound coverage techniques in patients with massive burns ≥50% TBSA - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Early wound coverage is one of the most essential factors influencing the survival of extensively burned patients, especially those with a total body surface area (TBSA) burned greater than 50 %. In patients with limited donor sites available for autografting, techniques such as the Meek micrograft procedure or cultured epidermal allografts (CEA) have proven to be viable alternatives. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analyzed the outcomes of different wound coverage techniques in patients with massive burn injuries ≥ 50 % TBSA in the past 17 years.

METHODS

The EMBASE, PUBMED, Google Scholar and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to December 2022 for studies investigating major burn reconstruction (>50 % TBSA) with the use of one of: a) autografts, b) allografts, c) cell-based therapies, and d) Meek micrografting. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The outcomes evaluated were mortality, length of hospital stay, graft take and number of operations performed.

RESULTS

Following a two-stage review process, 30 studies with 1369 patients were identified for analysis. Methods of coverage comprised the original autografting, and the newer Meek micrografting, CEA autografting, and allografting. Pooled mean age of the entire cohort was 32.5 years ( ± SE 3.6) with mean burn size of 66.1 % ( ± 2.5). After pooling the data, advantages in terms of mortality rate, length of stay, graft take and number of required surgeries were seen for the Meek and CEA groups. Mortality was highest in patients treated with autografts (50 %) and lowest with cell-based therapy (11 %). Length of stay was longest with cell-based therapy (91 ± 16 days) and shortest with Meek micrografting (50 ± 24 days). Graft take was highest with autografts (96 ± 2 %) and lowest with cell-based therapy (72 ± 9 %). Average number of operations was highest with cell-based therapy (9 ± 4) and lowest with Meek micrografting (4 ± 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of the four techniques highlighted differences in terms of all outcomes assessed, and each technique was associated with different advantages. Interestingly autografting, the option with the highest graft take rate, was also associated with the highest mortality. This study not only serves to provide the first comparison of the most commonly used techniques in major burn reconstruction, but also highlights the need for prospective studies that directly compare the efficacy of the different techniques to ultimately establish whether a true superior option exists.