Abstract
Objective This study aims to compare outcomes between Novosorb Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone for upper-extremity wound reconstruction. Methods This retrospective study analyzed adult patients who underwent wound reconstruction with either BTM or Integra at our institution between 2015 and 2020. Results Forty-eight patients were included: 31 (64.6%) BTM and 17 (35.4%) Integra. Mean age was 44.0 (range: 18-68) years. Age, race, sex, smoking, comorbidities, and defect size were similar between groups. Wound etiologies included 12 (25.0%) burn, 22 (45.8%) trauma, and others. Median template size was 133 cm (2) for BTM and 104 cm (2) for Integra ( p = 0.526). Skin grafting was performed after 14 (45.2%) and 14 (82.4%) wounds treated with BTM and Integra, respectively ( p = 0.028). Template complications of infection and dehiscence were comparable. Skin-graft complications occurred in five (35.7%) and three (21.4%) wounds in BTM and Integra, respectively ( p = 0.031). Skin-graft failure rates were comparable ( p = 0.121). Mean number of secondary procedures required after template placement was higher in the Integra group (BTM, 1.0; Integra, 1.9; p = 0.090). Final healing was achieved in 17 (54.8%) BTM and 11 (64.7%) Integra wounds ( p = 0.694). Median time to healing was 4.1 months after BTM and 2.6 months after Integra placement ( p = 0.014). Conclusion Compared with Integra, BTM achieved comparable wound healing and complication rates. Fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts were observed in BTM wounds, likely as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. At our institution, 100 cm (2) of product costs $850 for BTM and $3,150 for Integra, suggesting BTM as an economical alternative to fulfill the high functional and aesthetic requirements of upper-extremity wounds.