Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Different Skin Substitutes for the Treatment of Pediatric Burns

Introduction : Early debridement of partial-thickness burns and coverage with skin substitutes is currently the standard of care in children, although there is currently no “gold standard” skin substitute Our aim is to compare the effectiveness of three different skin substitutes, analyzing the medium and long-term outcomes. Methods : A retrospective study was conducted on burn patients under 18-years admitted to our Burn Unit between 2015-2021, who were divided into 3 groups according to the type of skin substitute used (EZ-derm®, Biobrane® and Suprathel®). Demographic, clinical data and short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Effectiveness was analyzed by escharectomy and grafting rate during acute management and long-term follow-up reintervention rate. Results : A total of 378 patients were included (179 Ez-derm®group, 107 Biobrane® group and 92 Suprathel® group). No differences in demographics or burn characteristics were observed between them. Patients treated with Suprathel®had a significantly shorter hospital stay [median 4 days (IQR 2-9)], a lower rate of escharectomy and grafting during acute management (21.1%), and a lower long-term follow-up reintervention rate (18.5%) when compared to the Ez-derm® group [median stay 9 days (IQR 6-13); escharectomy and graft 24.6% and reintervention 26.8%] and to the Biobrane® group [median stay 9 days (IQR 7-14); escharectomy and graft 32.1% and reintervention 26.2%]. Conclusion : Treatment of partial-thickness burns with Suprathel® is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower need for escharectomy and grafting, and lower need for long-term reintervention. Therefore, it should be considered the treatment of choice for pediatric partial-thickness burns.