ArticleHealth science reports2025
Efficiency of Epidermal Grafts in Chronic Wounds: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficiency of Epidermal Grafts in Chronic Wounds: A Retrospective Observational Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Chronic wounds represent a major challenge in medical management, requiring effective therapeutic approaches to promote healing. In recent years, epidermal grafts have emerged as a promising therapeutic option to improve the healing process of chronic wounds. This device only allows ultrasuperficial grafts to be performed using a suction/suction mechanism with a dermo-epidermal cleavage zone, unlike other superficial grafting techniques such as pellet or mesh grafts. There is little data in the literature regarding clinical studies because it is difficult to conduct comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy of grafts. The indications can be broad and the etiologies of the wounds varied, as we would like to illustrate. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the benefit of epidermal grafts in the treatment of chronic wounds. Method: A retrospective study was carried out over a period of 4 years, from 2019 to 2023. We used a so-called "superficial" grafting technique using an ultra superficial epidermal grafts CelluTome™ Epidermal Harvesting System (KCI, an Acelity company, San Antonio, USA). The objectives of these epidermal grafts could be twofold: either for analgesic purposes or to cover the wound to accelerate the healing process. Patient demographics, wound characteristics, treatment modalities, number of grafts and healing outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 28 patients with chronic wounds were included in the study; 23 "vascular" wounds were treated (82.2%), including 11 of venous origin (39.3%), 5 of arterial origin (17.8%) and 7 mixed ulcers (25%). No side effects have been reported. Patient follow-up averaged 22.70 (19.52) weeks. For the 15 patients whose objective was healing, 4 were healed after 1 month after the last Cellutome®. Discussion: This retrospective study demonstrates the potential value of epidermal grafting as a treatment for seams in hard-to-heal wounds. Epidermal grafts offer a number of advantages in the field of wound healing, particularly in difficult, recalcitrant and multifactorial wounds. The ease with which these grafts can be performed (broad aetiological indications, ambulatory nature, no need for a complex technical platform, no need for anesthesia) makes them accessible to a large number of patients. Despite these advantages, the results of epidermal grafts in terms of efficacy are difficult to assess. We did not find any comparative studies between the different superficial grafts. Conclusion: This procedure undoubtedly deserves to be better known and more widely used to optimize the experiments, particularly with regard to heating times.
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.