Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 201

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cultured Skin Substitutes Reduce Donor Skin Harvesting for Closure of Excised, Full-Thickness Burns

Open access
Boyce, Steven T., Kagan, Richard J., Yakuboff, Kevin P., Meyer, Nicholas A., Rieman, Mary T., Greenhalgh, David G., Warden, Glenn D.·2002·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of cultured skin substitutes (CSS) and split-thickness skin autograft (AG) was performed to assess whether donor-site harvesting can be reduced quantitatively and whether functional and cosmetic outcome is similar qualitatively in the treatment of patients with massive cutaneous burns. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Cultured skin substitutes consisting of collagen-glycosaminoglycan substrates populated with autologous fibroblasts and keratinocytes have been shown to close full-thickness skin wounds in preclinical and clinical studies with acceptable functional and cosmetic results. METHODS: Qualitative outcome was compared between CSS and AG in 45 patients on an ordinal scale (0, worst; 10, best) with primary analyses at postoperative day 28 and after about 1 year for erythema, pigmentation, pliability, raised scar, epithelial blistering, and surface texture. In the latest 12 of the 45 patients, tracings were performed of donor skin biopsies and wounds treated with CSS at postoperative days 14 and 28 to calculate percentage engraftment, the ratio of closed wound:donor skin areas, and the percentage of total body surface area closed with CSS. RESULTS: Measures of qualitative outcome of CSS or AG were not different statistically at 1 year after grafting. Engraftment at postoperative day 14 exceeded 75% in the 12 patients evaluated. The ratio of closed wound:donor skin areas for CSS at postoperative day 28 was significantly greater than for conventional 4:1 meshed autografts. The percentage of total body surface area closed with CSS at postoperative day 28 was significantly less than with AG. CONCLUSIONS: The requirement for harvesting of donor skin for CSS was less than for conventional skin autografts. These results suggest that acute-phase recovery of patients with extensive burns is facilitated and that complications are reduced by the use of CSS together with conventional skin grafting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000658-200202000-00016

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 201

Metadata

Authors
Boyce, S. T., Kagan, R. J., Yakuboff, K. P., Meyer, N. A., Rieman, M. T., Greenhalgh, D. G., & Warden, G. D.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2002-02
Volume
235
Issue
2
Pages
269-279
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982568227
Cited by
201
References
1
FWCI
8.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cultured Skin Substitutes Reduce Donor Skin Harvesting for Closure of Excised, Full-Thickness Burns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-200202000-00016
The paper
Boyce, S. T., Kagan, R. J., Yakuboff, K. P., Meyer, N. A., Rieman, M. T., Greenhalgh, D. G., & Warden, G. D. (2002). Cultured Skin Substitutes Reduce Donor Skin Harvesting for Closure of Excised, Full-Thickness Burns. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200202000-00016

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.