A Comparative Analysis of the Outcomes of Various Graft Types in Burn Reconstruction Over the Past 24 Years: A Systematic Review.

Burn injuries, a major global health concern, result in an estimated 180,000 fatalities annually. Despite tremendous progress in treatment methods over the years, the morbidity and mortality associated with burns remain significant. Autologous skin grafting, particularly split-thickness skin grafting (STSG), has been a cornerstone in burn reconstruction, and it has facilitated survival and functional recovery for total body surface area (TBSA) significantly. However, the requirement for primary closure at the donor site due to the constraints of full-thickness donor harvesting continues to pose challenges. The introduction of dermal regenerative templates (DRT) in the late 1970s marked a substantial step forward in tissue engineering, addressing the inadequacy of dermal replacement with STSGs. This systematic review aimed to compare the outcomes of different graft types - bioengineered, autografts, allografts, and xenografts - in burn reconstruction over the last 24 years. The review focused on the pros and cons of each graft type, offering clinical insights grounded in experience and evidence. The approach involved a systematic review of studies published in English from January 2000 to January 2024, covering randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series. The participants comprised individuals of all ages who underwent burn reconstruction with skin grafts, specifically split-thickness grafts, full-thickness grafts, composite grafts, and epidermal grafts (autografts, allografts, and xenografts) and bioengineered grafts. The primary outcomes were functional and cosmetic results, patient satisfaction, graft survival, and complications. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB 2), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies, and the Canada Institute for Health Economics (IHE) quality appraisal tool for case series. Our initial search yielded a total of 1,995 articles, out of which 10 studies were selected for final analysis. Among the four clinical trials assessed, 75% showed a high risk of bias. The studies reviewed involved various graft types, with six studies (60%) concentrating on allografts, three (30%) on autografts, and one (10%) on bioengineered skin grafts. The outcomes were varied, underlining the intricate nature of burn wound management. Our evaluation revealed promising results for autologous-engineered skin substitutes and allografts but also highlighted methodological disparities among the studies included. The dominance of observational studies and the diversity of outcome measures present obstacles to direct comparisons. Future research should address these limitations, employing well-structured RCTs, standardized outcome measures, and exploring long-term outcomes and patient-specific factors. The rapidly evolving field of regenerative medicine offers great potential for novel grafting methods. This systematic review provides valuable insights into the diverse outcomes of burn reconstruction using different graft types. Autologous-engineered skin substitutes and allografts seem to hold significant promise, suggesting a possible shift in grafting techniques. However, methodological inconsistencies and the lack of high-quality evidence underscore the necessity for further research to fine-tune burn care approaches.