Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266Wound Healing and TreatmentsDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 48 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A review of a bi-layered living cell treatment (Apligraf) in the treatment of venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers

Open access
Zaulyanov, Larissa, Kirsner, Robert S·2007·Clinical Interventions in Aging

Abstract

Apligraf (Organogenesis, Canton, MA) is a bi-layered bioengineered skin substitute and was the first engineered skin US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved to promote the healing of ulcers that have failed standard wound care. Constructed by culturing human foreskin-derived neonatal fibroblasts in a bovine type I collagen matrix over which human foreskin-derived neonatal epidermal keratinocytes are then cultured and allowed to stratify, Apligraf provides both cells and matrix for the nonhealing wound. Its exact mechanism of action is not known, but it is known to produce cytokines and growth factors similar to healthy human skin. Initially approved by the FDA in 1998 for the treatment of venous ulcers greater than one-month duration that have not adequately responded to conventional therapy, Apligraf later received approval in 2000 for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers of greater than three weeks duration. Herein, we review the use of Apligraf in the treatment of chronic venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. Our goal is to provide a working understanding of appropriate patient selection and proper use of the product for any physician treating this segment of the aging population.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This narrative review summarizes the use of Apligraf, a bi-layered bioengineered skin substitute of neonatal fibroblasts in bovine type I collagen overlaid with neonatal keratinocytes, for chronic venous leg ulcers (VLU) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). It covers the product's history, composition, mechanism, patient selection, application technique, and economic impact, drawing mainly on the two pivotal FDA-approval trials.

Key findings

  • In the VLU pivotal trial (293 outpatients), Apligraf plus compression achieved complete healing in 63% versus 49% with compression alone at 6 months, with median time to closure of 61 versus 181 days; benefit was greatest in larger (>10 cm²) and longer-duration (>6 months) ulcers.
  • In the DFU pivotal trial (208 patients, 24 US centers), 56% of Apligraf-treated patients achieved complete healing at 12 weeks versus 38% of controls, with median closure of 65 versus 90 days and an odds ratio for complete healing of 2.14 (95% CI 1.23–3.74); osteomyelitis and lower limb amputations were less frequent in the Apligraf group.
  • Apligraf is described as immunologically inert with no clinical or laboratory evidence of rejection, though its constituent cells are relatively short-lived (less than 4 weeks in most patients).
  • The review reports lower ulcer-related medical costs and improved quality of life (mainly reduced wound pain) with Apligraf versus conventional care, and in one VLU study an average ulcer size decrease of 2.37 cm²/week versus a 0.72 cm²/week increase in controls.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of the literature on Apligraf for VLU and DFU, including its history, composition, mechanism of action, patient selection, proper application, and economic impact.
  • Evidence base: primarily the two pivotal randomized controlled trials supporting FDA approval (Falanga et al 1998 for VLU; Veves et al 2001 for DFU), plus additional published studies and case reports of other wound applications.
  • The review also synthesizes practical guidance on identifying nonhealing wounds, negative predictive markers, wound bed preparation, and application/dressing technique.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state explicit limitations of its own review.
  • Evident from the text: this is a narrative (non-systematic) review with no described search strategy or formal quality appraisal, and it relies heavily on the two pivotal trials and on secondary sources for economic and quality-of-life claims.
  • The text itself notes that the exact mechanism of action of Apligraf is not known and that its cells do not persist indefinitely, which limits mechanistic conclusions.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/ciia.2007.2.1.93

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 38 Not checked · 18 Own results and interpretations

27 more claims

Create a free account to see all 56 claims and to verify the 27 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14

Create a free account to see these claims.

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2002.02116.x · DOI
  2. 10.1016/1076-0512(94)00290-8 · DOI
  3. Falanga VJ., 2000, Adv Skin Wound Care, 13, 15
  4. 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2002.02130.x · DOI
  5. Mathias SD, 2000, Ads Skin Wound Care, 13, 76
  6. Trent JT, 2005, Ostomy Wound Manage, 51, 35

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Zaulyanov, L., & Kirsner, R. S.
Affiliations
University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Zaulyanov, Larissa
Venue
Clinical Interventions in Aging
Published
2007-03
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
93-98
ISSN
1176-9092 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2067691626
Cited by
266
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 9
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Interventions in Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Keywords
Apligraf, bioengineered skin substitutes, venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcer, chronic wounds, wound healing, human foreskin fibroblasts, keratinocytes, collagen matrix, cytokines and growth factors, patient selection
MeSH terms
Collagen, Humans, Varicose Ulcer, Foot Ulcer, Diabetic Foot, Patient Selection

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

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.