Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29590523›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2018

Long-term follow-up comparison of two different bi-layer dermal substitutes in tissue regeneration: Clinical outcomes and histological findings.

Barbara De Angelis, Fabrizio Orlandi, Margarida Fernandes Lopes Morais D'Autilio, Maria G Scioli, Augusto Orlandi, Valerio Cervelli, Pietro Gentile

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase ReportsComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barbara De AngelisDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Fabrizio OrlandiDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Margarida Fernandes Lopes Morais D'AutilioDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Maria G ScioliDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Augusto OrlandiDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Valerio CervelliDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Pietro GentileDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
University of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Double layer dermal substitute (DS) consist of a 3-dimensional collagen structures and a superficial silicon layer that are positioned within the defect provide to promote tissue regeneration in skin wounds. DS often have unique physical characteristics due to differences in manufacturing techniques. The aim of this study is the clinical and histological comparison of Nevelia and Integra double layer DSs in patients with post-traumatic injury wounds. Thirty patients with post-traumatic wounds localised on the inferior limbs were randomised in 2 groups Nevelia or Integra, followed by autologous dermal epidermal graft (DEG). Clinical results were evaluated through the healing time; Manchester Scar Scale (MSS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 1, 2, and 3 weeks and after 1 and 3 years. Histological and immunohistochemical evaluation were performed at 0, 2, and 3 weeks. The difference in healing time between groups (P = .467, log-rank test), pain and self-estimation was not statistically significant after 35, 42, and 49 days and at 1-year follow up. Histological data showed evident healing of wound after 2 weeks compared with preoperative with both DSs. At 3 weeks reepithelialisation and dermal regeneration were evident with both substitutes; however Nevelia showed early regenerative properties in terms of epidermal proliferation and dermal renewal compared with Integra. Nevelia showed also a more evident angiogenesis vs Integra evaluated as α-SMA immunohistochemistry. Differences in the MSS score were statistically significant at 3 years follow up in favour of Nevelia group (P = .001). At long-term follow up, Nevelia showed a better clinical outcome measured as MSS score vs Integra measured as MSS. Histological and immunohistochemistry data showed that Nevelia allows faster neoangiogenesis and tissue regeneration with neoformed tissue architecture closer to the physiology of the skin.

Indexed as

Skin, ArtificialSkin Physiological PhenomenaAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegenerationSkinSkin TransplantationTreatment OutcomeWound Healingdermal templatelong-term trialtissue regenerationwoundwound healing

Identifiers

PMID29590523
PMCPMC7949690
OpenAlexW2794949309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.