Autologous Skin Grafts, versus Tissue-engineered Skin Constructs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

For over 100 years, autologous skin grafts have remained the gold standard for the reconstruction of wounds but are limited in availability. Acellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (acellular TCs) and cellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (cellular TCs) may address these limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare outcomes between them. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, querying MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to assess graft incorporation, failure, and wound healing. Case reports/series, reviews, in vitro/in vivo work, non-English articles or articles without full text were excluded. Results: Sixty-six articles encompassing 4076 patients were included. No significant differences were found between graft failure rates (P = 0.07) and mean difference of percent reepithelialization (p = 0.92) when split-thickness skin grafts were applied alone versus co-grafted with acellular TCs. Similar mean Vancouver Scar Scale was found for these two groups (p = 0.09). Twenty-one studies used at least one cellular TC. Weighted averages from pooled results did not reveal statistically significant differences in mean reepithelialization or failure rates for epidermal cellular TCs compared with split-thickness skin grafts (p = 0.55). Conclusions: This systematic review is the first to illustrate comparable functional and wound healing outcomes between split-thickness skin grafts alone and those co-grafted with acellular TCs. The use of cellular TCs seems promising from preliminary findings. However, these results are limited in clinical applicability due to the heterogeneity of study data, and further level 1 evidence is required to determine the safety and efficacy of these constructs.

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy versus Standard Surgical Dressings after Malignant Tumor Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Negative-pressure wound therapy offers many advantages over standard surgical dressings in the treatment of open wounds, including accelerated wound healing, cost savings, and reduced complication rates. Although contraindicated by device manufacturers in malignancy-resected wounds because of hypothesized risk of tumor recurrence, negative-pressure wound therapy is still applied postoperatively because of limited clinical support. The authors performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare negative-pressure wound therapy outcomes with those of standard surgical dressings on open wounds, with their null hypothesis stating there would be no outcome differences. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on negative-pressure wound therapy and standard surgical dressings on malignancy-resected wounds was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases. Meta-analysis compared group outcomes, including malignancy recurrence, wound complication, and surgical site infection rates, with a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 1634 studies were identified and 27 met eligibility criteria, including four randomized controlled trials, four prospective cohort studies, and 19 retrospective reviews. Eighty-one percent of articles ( n = 22) recommended negative-pressure wound therapy in malignancy-resected wounds. Meta-analysis determined that the treatment yielded significantly lower overall surgical site infection ( p = 0.004) and wound complication ( p = 0.01) rates than standard surgical dressings; however, there were no statistically significant differences found for other outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates favorable outcomes of negative-pressure wound therapy over standard surgical dressings for malignancy-resected wounds without an increased risk of malignancy recurrence. However, because limited randomized controlled trials (detailing only incisional wounds for limited malignancies and anatomic regions) are available, additional high-power randomized controlled trials are recommended.

Hip Fractures Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Demographics and Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York, hip fractures requiring operative management continued to present to Stony Brook University Hospital. Given the novelty of SARS-CoV-2, there is recent interest in the pandemic and its relationship to orthopedic operative outcomes. This retrospective cohort study compared outcomes for operative hip fractures in patients prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic at a level 1 academic center. Materials and Methods: Data was collected on patients age 18 years or older who underwent operative management for hip fractures performed from January 21, 2019 to July 1, 2019 (pre-pandemic) or from January 21, 2020 to July 1, 2020 (pandemic). COVID-19 status, demographics and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 159 patients with hip fractures were included in this study, 103 in the 2019 group and 56 in the 2020 group. Within the 2019 group, there was a significantly greater proportion of female patients compared to 2020 (p = 0.0128). The length of hospital stay was shorter for the 2020 group by 1.84 days (p = 0.0138). COVID-19 testing was positive in 4 (7.1%) patients in the 2020 group, negative for 22 patients (39.3%), and the remaining 30 patients in the 2020 group (53.7%) were not tested during their admission. There were no other significant differences in demographics or outcomes between the 2019 and 2020 groups. DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly alter most aspects of care for hip fracture patients at our institution. Interestingly, postoperative pulmonary outcomes were not affected by the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a significantly higher proportion of males presented with hip fractures in the pandemic group. In addition, the average length of hospital stay was shorter during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is needed to understand the nuances that may lead to improved care for patients with hip fractures during a pandemic.