Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The number of skin substitutes (SS) available for wound care management has increased markedly in the last few decades. This presents a challenge as dermatologists attempt to determine the appropriate setting for a skin substitute use.
OBJECTIVE: This is a practical review of SS used in dermatologic surgery to assist clinicians in their selection of SS by providing information about the efficacy, risk, availability, shelf-life, and relative cost of the available options.
METHODS: Relevant data were identified through a search of PubMed, a manual search of relevant company websites, a manual search of the reference sections of relevant papers, and communicating with subject experts.
RESULTS: SS can be divided into 7 categories based on composition: amnion, cultured epithelial autograft, acellular allograft, cellular allografts, xenografts, composites, and synthetics. These groups offer unique benefits and disadvantages that are outlined in the manuscript and tables.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of the characteristics, settings of use, and efficacies of SS may allow more effective wound care and the potential for faster healing times. Additional studies are needed to evaluate and compare the healing benefits of these substitutes. Trials comparing the efficacy of each of the common SS vs each other and granulation are needed. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(5): doi:10.36849/JDD.7132.
OBJECTIVE: This is a practical review of SS used in dermatologic surgery to assist clinicians in their selection of SS by providing information about the efficacy, risk, availability, shelf-life, and relative cost of the available options.
METHODS: Relevant data were identified through a search of PubMed, a manual search of relevant company websites, a manual search of the reference sections of relevant papers, and communicating with subject experts.
RESULTS: SS can be divided into 7 categories based on composition: amnion, cultured epithelial autograft, acellular allograft, cellular allografts, xenografts, composites, and synthetics. These groups offer unique benefits and disadvantages that are outlined in the manuscript and tables.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of the characteristics, settings of use, and efficacies of SS may allow more effective wound care and the potential for faster healing times. Additional studies are needed to evaluate and compare the healing benefits of these substitutes. Trials comparing the efficacy of each of the common SS vs each other and granulation are needed. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(5): doi:10.36849/JDD.7132.
摘要：
背景技术在过去的几十年中,可用于伤口护理管理的皮肤替代物(SS)的数量显著增加。当皮肤科医生试图确定皮肤替代物使用的适当设置时,这提出了挑战。
目的：这是对皮肤手术中使用的SS的实用综述，通过提供有关疗效的信息来帮助临床医生选择SS，风险，可用性,保质期,以及可用选项的相对成本。
方法：通过搜索PubMed确定了相关数据，相关公司网站的手动搜索，手动搜索相关论文的参考部分，并与主题专家沟通。
结果：SS可根据组成分为7类：羊膜，培养的上皮自体移植物，无细胞同种异体移植,细胞同种异体移植物，异种移植物,复合材料,和合成材料。这些小组提供了手稿和表格中概述的独特优点和缺点。
结论：对特征的考虑，使用设置，和SS的功效可以允许更有效的伤口护理和更快的愈合时间的潜力。需要更多的研究来评估和比较这些替代品的治疗益处。需要比较每种常见SS相对于彼此和颗粒的功效的试验。J药物Dermatol.2023年；22（5）：doi：10.36849/JD.7132。
目的：这是对皮肤手术中使用的SS的实用综述，通过提供有关疗效的信息来帮助临床医生选择SS，风险，可用性,保质期,以及可用选项的相对成本。
方法：通过搜索PubMed确定了相关数据，相关公司网站的手动搜索，手动搜索相关论文的参考部分，并与主题专家沟通。
结果：SS可根据组成分为7类：羊膜，培养的上皮自体移植物，无细胞同种异体移植,细胞同种异体移植物，异种移植物,复合材料,和合成材料。这些小组提供了手稿和表格中概述的独特优点和缺点。
结论：对特征的考虑，使用设置，和SS的功效可以允许更有效的伤口护理和更快的愈合时间的潜力。需要更多的研究来评估和比较这些替代品的治疗益处。需要比较每种常见SS相对于彼此和颗粒的功效的试验。J药物Dermatol.2023年；22（5）：doi：10.36849/JD.7132。
