Trial reportAdvances in skin & wound care2016
An Automated and Minimally Invasive Tool for Generating Autologous Viable Epidermal Micrografts.
Trial report in Advances in skin & wound care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Label-free multiphoton microscopy of human skin: longitudinal studies capturing cell dynamics.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Growth factors IGF-1 and KGF and adipose-derived stem cells promote migration and viability of primary human keratinocytes in anFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The use of autologous epidermal grafts for diabetic foot ulcer emergencies: A clinical study.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2022Article
- A comparative study of suction blister epidermal grafting and automated blister epidermal micrograft in stable vitiligo.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Skin grafting treatment of adolescent lower limb avulsion injury.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Immune tolerance of allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation supports donor epidermal grafting of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa chronic wounds.The British journal of dermatology · 2021Article
- Use of epidermal skin grafts in chronic wounds: a case series.International wound journal · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
- A Case Series of Complex Recalcitrant Wounds Treated with Epidermal Grafts Harvested from an Automated Device.Cureus · 2016Article
- Epidermal skin grafting.International wound journal · 2016Review
- Epidermal skin grafting in vitiligo: a pilot study.International wound journal · 2016Article
- Article
- Epidermal micrografts produced via an automated and minimally invasive tool form at the dermal/epidermal junction and contain proliferative cells that secrete wound healing growth factors.Advances in skin & wound care · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA new epidermal harvesting tool (CelluTome; Kinetic Concepts, Inc, San Antonio, Texas) created epidermal micrografts with minimal donor site damage, increased expansion ratios, and did not require the use of an operating room. The tool, which applies both heat and suction concurrently to normal skin, was used to produce epidermal micrografts that were assessed for uniform viability, donor-site healing, and discomfort during and after the epidermal harvesting procedure.
designThis study was a prospective, noncomparative institutional review board-approved healthy human study to assess epidermal graft viability, donor-site morbidity, and patient experience.
settingThese studies were conducted at the multispecialty research facility, Clinical Trials of Texas, Inc, San Antonio. PATIENTS: The participants were 15 healthy human volunteers.
resultsThe average viability of epidermal micrografts was 99.5%. Skin assessment determined that 76% to 100% of the area of all donor sites was the same in appearance as the surrounding skin within 14 days after epidermal harvest. A mean pain of 1.3 (on a scale of 1 to 5) was reported throughout the harvesting process.
conclusionsUse of this automated, minimally invasive harvesting system provided a simple, low-cost method of producing uniformly viable autologous epidermal micrografts with minimal patient discomfort and superficial donor-site wound healing within 2 weeks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.