Most hospitals use protocols for surgical antibioprophylaxis (ABP). Despite SFB's 2009 recommendations promoting ABP in burn patients and stating the molecules to be used, wide variations exist within hospitals and among French hospitals, in cases of skin grafting and use of dermal substitutes. We contacted surgeons in 12 French Burn Centres (BCs) via email and questioned them about ABP in cases of skin grafting (thin and total) as well as in the use of dermal substitutes, in acute and sequelae settings. Eight BCs answered. In the acute phase, 3 BCs (37.5%) always use ABP in skin grafts, 2 (25%) use ABP on suspicion of wound infection and 3 (37.5%) never use ABP. When installing skin substitute, 5 BCs (62.5%) use ABP, one (12.5%) does so if the wound is suspected of being infected and 2 (25%) never use ABP. For sequelae, 5 BCs (62.5%) use ABP whatever the surgery, while 3 (37.5%) never use it. Infection onset after skin graft or use of dermal substitute is frequent. Our study shows wide variations in the use of ABP in these surgeries. A multi-centre evaluation of the implementation of SFB's 2009 recommendations and their role in preventing postoperative infections after skin grafting and skin substitute use, both in acute and sequelae phases, could help harmonize practices in BCs.