Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Advancements in bioengineered and autologous skin grafting techniques for skin reconstruction: a comprehensive review

Dean J., Hoch C., Wollenberg B., Navidzadeh J., Maheta B., Mandava A.

Systematic Review on Chronic Wound, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Systematic Review
Journal
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39840132
PMCID
PMC11747595
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2024.1461328
Citations
22

Abstract (original English)

The reconstruction of complex skin defects challenges clinical practice, with autologous skin grafts (ASGs) as the traditional choice due to their high graft take rate and patient compatibility. However, ASGs have limitations such as donor site morbidity, limited tissue availability, and the necessity for multiple surgeries in severe cases. Bioengineered skin grafts (BSGs) aim to address these drawbacks through advanced tissue engineering and biomaterial science. This study conducts a systematic review to describe the benefits and shortcomings of BSGs and ASGs across wound healing efficacy, tissue integration, immunogenicity, and functional outcomes focusing on wound re-epithelialization, graft survival, and overall aesthetic outcomes. Preliminary findings suggest ASGs show superior early results, while BSGs demonstrate comparable long-term outcomes with reduced donor site morbidity. This comparative analysis enhances understanding of bioengineered alternatives in skin reconstruction, potentially redefining best practices based on efficacy, safety, and patient-centric outcomes, highlighting the need for further innovation in bioengineered solutions.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research