Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermal substitutes are currently largely used for the treatment of huge skin loss in patients in critical general health conditions, for the treatment of severe burns and to promote the healing process in chronic wounds. AIMS: The authors performed a retrospective assessment of their experience with bioengineered skin to possibly identify the most appropriate clinical indication and management for each substitute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 109 patients with 127 skin defects repaired with dermal substitutes over a 9 years period, from 2007 to 2016. Hyalomatrix(®) was used in 63 defects, whereas Integra(®) and Nevelia(®) were used in 56 and 8 defects, respectively. RESULTS: The statistical analysis failed to reveal a correlation between the choice of a specific dermal substitute and any possible clinical variable except in the soft-tissue defects of the scalp where Hyalomatrix(®) was electively used. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' experience, the scalp defects followed a radical excision of skin tumours that included the periosteum. Here, the preliminary cover with a hyaluronan three-dimensional scaffold constantly allowed for the regeneration of a derma-like layer with a rich vascular network fit for supporting a split-thickness skin graft. Nevertheless, the authors still prefer Integra(®) when the goal is a better cosmetic outcome and Hyalomatrix(®) when a faster wound healing is required, especially in the management of deep wounds where the priority is a fast obliteration with a newly formed tissue with a rich blood supply. However, these clinical indications still are anecdotally based.