ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Application of a minimally invasive full-thickness autologous microcolumn skin harvesting device for donor site tissue collection and augmenting wound healing in a porcine wound model.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Techniques in Fractional Skin Replacement.European burn journal · 2025Review
- Application of a minimally invasive full-thickness autologous microcolumn skin harvesting device for donor site tissue collection and augmenting wound healing in a porcine wound model.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Microneedle-Mediated Delivery of Extracellular Matrix-Inspired Peptides for Mitigation of Burn Wound Progression and Support of Tissue Repair.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Using a 6-week porcine full-thickness excisional wound grafting model, we evaluated the Autologous Regeneration of Tissue (ART®) System, a novel skin harvesting device designed to collect autologous full-thickness autologous microcolumns (FTAM) at 0.5 mm in diameter. The donor skin sites were harvested using the ART® System and compared to split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs). Recipient sites were divided into three treatment groups: FTAM, STSG and Untreated control. Comparing the FTAM donor sites to the STSG donor sites, we observed significantly faster re-epithelization by Day 4 (p < 0.05), earlier adnexal structures and rete ridge formation by Week 3, and increased collagen and elastin content by Week 6. We also observed an increased rate of healing at the FTAM donor site whilst limiting donor site morbidity compared to traditional STSG donor sites. Time to recipient site closure was 2.4 weeks for STSG treated, 3.3 weeks for FTAM treated and 4.1 weeks for the Untreated control (p < 0.05). The STSG and FTAM recipient sites reached complete re-epithelialization by Weeks 4 and 5, respectively which was significantly faster compared to the Untreated control. However, the FTAM recipient site received only 10% of the donor site tissue relative to the recipient site area and the amount of donor site tissue grafted on the STSG recipient sites was 5× more than the FTAM recipient sites. Additionally, the FTAMs harvested by the ART® System augmented recipient wound site healing as a result of 'epithelial island' expansion in contrast to Untreated control sites that closed primarily by contracture.
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.