Anju B Saraswat, Jeremy M Rawlins, Jeffrey E Carter, Joseph A Molnar, Ian L Valerio, Booker T King, William L Hickerson, Joshua S Carson, Derek E Bell, Steven A Kahn, C Scott Hultman, Rajiv Sood, Anjay Khandelwal, Fiona M Wood, James H Holmes Iv
The available global evidence supports SCSA as a versatile modality for supporting epidermal coverage across wound types and clinical contexts. However, the findings should be interpreted in the context of the limitations of this review, which include heterogenous study designs, variable outcome reporting, predominance of non-randomized data, and the absence of a formal quantitative analysis. Nevertheless, the demonstrated clinical and economic benefits in comparative studies reinforce the role of SCSA as an evidence-based innovation for burn and wound treatment.
BACKGROUND: Skin cell suspension autograft (SCSA) is a point-of-care approach to wound management facilitating epithelialization while reducing burden associated with conventional autografting. Despite growing clinical use of SCSA across diverse wound etiologies, the global clinical evidence describing its use has not yet been comprehensively synthesized.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies between January 2000 and December 2024 reporting clinical use of SCSA for wound closure. Data on patient demographics, wound characteristics, and treatment methods were extracted. Clinical, safety, and health economic outcomes were extracted for comparative studies evaluating SCSA against control treatments.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine studies across 13 countries were included. Across the overall dataset, SCSA was used alone or in combination with autografting for burns, surgical wounds, traumatic injuries, inflammatory conditions, and chronic wounds. Among comparative studies (n=27), SCSA consistently reduced donor skin, and healing outcomes favored SCSA in 61%, while 39% reported equivalent outcomes. Pain and esthetic outcomes more frequently favored SCSA, while safety outcomes were generally similar, with some studies favoring comparators. Health-economic outcomes suggested potential reductions in length of stay and resource utilization, although findings were variable across studies.
CONCLUSION: The available global evidence supports SCSA as a versatile modality for supporting epidermal coverage across wound types and clinical contexts. However, the findings should be interpreted in the context of the limitations of this review, which include heterogenous study designs, variable outcome reporting, predominance of non-randomized data, and the absence of a formal quantitative analysis. Nevertheless, the demonstrated clinical and economic benefits in comparative studies reinforce the role of SCSA as an evidence-based innovation for burn and wound treatment.