Performance of Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix vs Collagen-chondroitin Silicone Bilayer Dermal Regeneration Substitutes in Soft Tissue Wound Healing: A Retrospective Analysis

Abstract

This study compared outcomes of soft tissue reconstruction using biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes. In this study, the authors compared wound healing rates and complication rates between BTM and CCS. This retrospective study reviewed outcomes for adult patients who underwent soft tissue reconstruction with either BTM or CCS skin substitutes between 2015 and 2020. Demographics, wound characteristics, surgical details, and complications were recorded. Ninety-seven patients were included, of whom 51 (52.6%) were treated with BTM graft and 46 (47.4%) with CCS bilayer graft. The mean patient age was 48.2 years (range, 18-93 years). Wound etiologies included burn, trauma, iatrogenic, compartment syndrome, skin cancer, and osteomyelitis. The median template size was 147 cm2 and 100 cm2 for BTM and CCS, respectively (P =.337). Skin grafts were applied to 39 patients (84.8%) treated with CCS compared with 28 (54.9%) treated with BTM (P =.006); the remaining wounds healing secondarily. The template-related and skin graft-related complications of infection, dehiscence, and hematoma or seroma were comparable between groups. The rate of skin graft failure was significantly higher in the CCS cohort (n = 9 [23.1%]) compared with the BTM group (n = 1 [3.6%]) (P =.006). More secondary procedures were required after CCS placement (mean ± standard deviation, 1.9 ± 1.8; range, 0-9) than after BTM (mean, 1.0 ± 0.9; range 0-4) (P =.002). There was no statistical significance in the frequency of definitive closure between BTM and CCS (n = 31 [60.8%] vs n = 28 [60.9%], respectively; P =.655). Compared with CCS, BTM had comparable closure and complication rates and required fewer secondary procedures and/or subsequent skin grafting.