Biosynthetic skin substitute versus frozen human cadaver allograft for temporary coverage of excised burn wounds

Gary F. Purdue, John L. Hunt, Robert W. Gillespie, John F. Hansbrough, William J. Dominic, Martin C. Robson, David J. Smith, Bruce G. Macmillan, J. Paul Waymac, David N. Herndon, Manu Desai, Boyd E. Terry, Arnaldo Bendlin, Frederick A. Declement, Arthur M. Kahn, Marella L. Hanumadass, Takayoshi Matsuda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

51 Scopus citations


During the past 2 years a multicenter study was performed comparing Biobrane (Woodroof) and frozen cadaver allograft as temporary dressings on freshly excised full-thickness burns before the application of autograft. Each biologic dressing was evaluated with respect to the other on the same patient. Seventy-one patients were evaluated. The mean burn size was 35 ± 20% with a mean full-thickness burn of 28 ± 20%. Mean patient age was 34 ± 21 years. Overall survival was 82%. The mean time of wound coverage was 10.2 ± 6.7 days. There was no significant difference in the number of dressing changes, area changed, purulence, autograft take, and final results between allograft-and Biobrane-covered sites. There were no complications following use of either Biobrane or allograft. We conclude that Biobrane is as effective as frozen human cadaver allograft for the temporary coverage of freshly excised full-thickness burn wounds before autografting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)155-157
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 1987
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Biosynthetic skin substitute versus frozen human cadaver allograft for temporary coverage of excised burn wounds'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this