Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Skin substitutes as treatment for chronic wounds: current and future directions

Vecin NM., Kirsner RS.

Narrative Review on Diabetic Foot, Chronic Wound, published in Front Med (Lausanne) (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Narrative Review
Journal
Front Med (Lausanne) (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37711741
PMCID
PMC10498286
DOI
10.3389/fmed.2023.1154567
Citations
43

Abstract (original English)

Chronic wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers place a significant burden on the healthcare system and in some cases, have 5-year mortality rates comparable to cancer. They negatively impact patients' quality of life due to pain, odor, decreased mobility, and social isolation. Skin substitutes are an advanced therapy recommended for wounds that fail to show decrease in size with standard care. The choice of substitute used should be based on evidence, which often differs based on wound etiology. There are more than 75 skin substitutes currently available, and that number is rising. In this review, we discuss current management and future directions of chronic wounds while providing a review of available randomized control trial data for various skin substitutes.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research