Acute burn surgery — excision, grafting, escharotomy

Overview

Acute burn surgery converts a poorly perfused, contaminated wound into a closed wound. The operative work has three components: excise nonviable tissue before it drives sepsis and systemic inflammation, decompress when edema or eschar threatens limb or torso perfusion, and replace the cutaneous envelope with autograft, allograft, dermal templates, or cell-based constructs. Standard treatment for deep partial-thickness and full-thickness burns is early excision and grafting ^[2][3][7]. Third-degree burns are usually treated by early excision and skin grafting ^[7].

The mortality argument for early excision is settled in adults without inhalation injury. A 2006 meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized comparisons of early versus delayed excision found a relative risk for mortality of 0.36 (95 percent CI 0.20 to 0.65) favoring early excision when inhalation injury was excluded, with shorter length of stay (weighted mean difference -8.89 days, 95 percent CI -14.28 to -3.50) and higher blood transfusion requirement as the principal trade-off ^[1]. In an earlier comparison of conservative versus early excision in severely burned patients aged 17 to 30 years, mortality without inhalation injury fell from 45 percent to 9 percent with early excision ^[4]. The 1987 cohort of patients with greater than 50 percent TBSA without inhalation injury also showed lower mortality with early excision, although that effect was largely explained by age differences ^[23].

Two contemporary signals complicate the simple "earlier is better" reading. A 2021 systematic review across low-income and high-income countries reported lower mortality in late-excision cohorts than in early-excision cohorts, with the heterogeneity in age, inhalation injury, comorbidities, and resource access making firm causal inference difficult ^[5]. Subgroup analyses confirm that the mortality advantage of early excision does not extend uniformly to elderly patients in some single-unit series ^[6][22]. The standard remains early excision in patients who can tolerate it; population context shapes how aggressively that standard is pursued.

Indications and Timing

Timing of Excision

Most contemporary series operate within the first week of injury and many target the first 5 days. In a randomized comparison of hand burns excised and grafted within 5 days of injury versus delayed excision, total active motion, grip strength, and Jebsen-Taylor hand function test results all favored the early-excision group, and hospital stay was shorter ^[24]. In a systematic review of randomized studies, the standard treatment for deep partial-thickness and full-thickness burn is early excision and grafting ^[2][3][7]. In animal models, both early and late tangential excision followed by autografting reduce scarring compared with non-excised burns, supporting excision as the dominant variable rather than its precise timing within the early window ^[26].

Sequential excision strategies are used when the patient cannot tolerate single-stage closure of the entire wound. In a 12-patient series of deep burns covering 30 to 50 percent TBSA, sequential excision and wound coverage was begun 1 to 3 days after burn ^[27]. In a separate management series, deep dermal injury that had not healed by 21 days was managed with staged excision and grafting ^[10].

Burns That Should Not Be Excised Acutely

Two indications carry meaningful counter-evidence. The first is the elderly burn patient: in one unit's experience, management of elderly patients by early excision and grafting was of no benefit and may have resulted in a higher mortality rate ^[6]. A 1990 series concluded that elderly patients represent a high-risk population, that early surgical excision results in fewer episodes of infection and a reduction in hospital stay but does not significantly improve survival ^[22]. The 2021 systematic review reproduced the elderly subgroup signal in high-income countries ^[5]. The second is the patient with significant inhalation injury, in whom the mortality benefit of early excision is not established ^[1][4][23]. Decisions in both populations are individualized; population-level signals frame the conversation rather than dictate it.

Assessment

Burn Depth Assessment

Burn depth determines whether a wound needs operative excision and whether the operation is tangential, fascial, or deferred to enzymatic eschar removal. Clinical assessment by experienced burn surgeons is 40 to 60 percent accurate on the day of injury, rising to 71 percent by post-burn day 5 and 100 percent by day 8 in one series ^[8]. Laser Doppler imaging reaches 79.5 percent accuracy on day 1, 95 percent on day 3, and 97 percent on day 5 ^[8]. In a randomized trial of laser Doppler imaging versus standard care, mean time to wound healing did not differ significantly (14.3 versus 15.5 days), but laser Doppler imaging improved therapeutic decisions ^[28]. Burn depth determined by laser Doppler imaging, ethnicity, pain scores, total body surface area, mechanism, and days to presentation account for 69 percent of the variance in delayed re-epithelialization ^[9].

A practical implication is that wound assessment is iterative. Many wounds judged borderline at presentation declare themselves over the first 72 hours, and a delay-to-clarity strategy is reasonable for indeterminate wounds without compartment threat. In facial burns specifically, 77 percent of facial burns that had been debrided enzymatically were found to be more superficially burned than initially estimated ^[19].

Compartment and Perfusion Assessment

Circumferential burns of the extremities, neck, or torso threaten perfusion when edema accumulates beneath inelastic eschar. Clinicians treating burns recognize the need for escharotomy and decompressive therapies when distal pulses, capillary refill, or chest excursion deteriorate during resuscitation ^[29]. Total hand burn management of third-degree burns has historically included emergency escharotomy of hand and digits, early escharotomy and immediate skin grafting on the dorsum of hand, thenar-wrist, and volar-digit areas ^[30]. Enzymatic eschar removal can decompress some circumferential deep burns: in a 5-pig burn-induced compartment syndrome model, intracompartmental pressure subsided after 2 to 4 hours of bromelain application, and none of the enzymatic-escharotomy-treated patients with circumferential burns required surgical escharotomy ^[18]. The decision to escharotomize remains clinical, driven by serial perfusion assessment rather than a single pressure number.

Excision Techniques

Tangential Excision

Tangential excision removes nonviable tissue in successive thin layers until viable, punctate-bleeding dermis is reached. It is the dominant technique for deep partial-thickness and many full-thickness burns of the trunk and extremities. In a randomized comparison of early tangential excision and skin grafting versus expectant treatment with topical honey, early tangential excision and skin grafting was clearly superior to expectant treatment in patients with moderate burns ^[31]. In a porcine burn model, wounds treated with early or late tangential excision followed by skin autografting were flat and minimally contracted, whereas all non-excised burns were red, contracted, and slightly raised ^[26].

Two technical adjuncts reduce blood loss without compromising graft take. Continuous tourniquet application during tangential excision on the extremities reduced operational blood loss, blood transfusion, and operation time by 41 to 50 percent compared with no tourniquet ^[11]; graft take was 98.2 percent with tourniquet versus 98.2 to 96.8 percent without ^[12]. Tumescent infiltration with subcutaneous epinephrine reduced total blood loss and blood loss per unit area excised; in a paediatric series, mean blood loss with epinephrine infiltration was 1090 mL versus 1271 mL without epinephrine, with no complications or side effects of the vasopressor solution ^[12][13][32]. In a randomized paediatric trial of post-burn flexion contracture release, the tumescent group had better graft take, lower pain scores, and reduced analgesic consumption than the tourniquet group ^[34].

Fascial Excision

Fascial excision removes skin, subcutaneous tissue, and superficial fascia en bloc. It minimizes blood loss and produces a uniformly graftable bed but at the cost of contour and donor-site morbidity. Direct fascial excision minimizes the number of debridement sessions ^[35]. In a 12-patient series with mean burn size 38 percent TBSA who underwent fascial excision of one or more extremities, late functional outcome at one year showed contour and exposure problems on extremities where fascial excision had been used ^[35][36]. Fascial excision is reserved for very deep burns, infected eschar where rapid clearance trumps cosmesis, or patients in whom blood loss minimization is a priority.

Hydrosurgery

The Versajet hydrosurgery system uses a high-velocity saline jet to debride tissue selectively. In a randomized comparison of Versajet versus classic escharectomy, the Versajet procedure was faster (P less than 0.05) and more precise in obtaining the correct plane ^[37]. In a paediatric RCT comparing Versajet hydrosurgery and conventional debridement of partial-thickness burns, viable dermis preservation was significantly greater with Versajet (median dermis lost 35 micrometers versus 325 micrometers, P = 0.02) ^[38]. The 2020 Cochrane review concluded there may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (mean difference 0.2 minutes), with very low certainty ^[39].

Enzymatic Debridement

Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement (NexoBrid, EDNX) achieves selective eschar removal without sharp dissection. In a 2018 systematic review of 18 articles enrolling 7148 patients, three RCTs compared NexoBrid or Versajet against standard surgical care ^[40]. In a 2017 case-control comparison, enzymatic debridement significantly reduced time to complete wound closure after admission (19.85 days versus 42.23 days, P = 0.002) ^[19]. The DETECT multicenter randomized trial reported complete eschar removal in 93 percent of NexoBrid patients versus 4 percent of gel-vehicle patients (P less than 0.001), with reduced surgery and blood loss in the NexoBrid arm ^[20]. A 2025 systematic review concluded that bromelain-based enzymatic debridement may accelerate eschar removal and reduce the need for surgical excision and autografts, without adversely affecting wound closure time or long-term scar quality ^[21]. In a 2026 systematic review focused on hand burns, enzymatic debridement, through preservation of viable dermis and reduced grafting need, was associated with improved functional outcomes ^[41].

Hemostasis Adjuncts

Operative blood loss in burn excision is substantial. Tourniquet, subcutaneous epinephrine, and topical thrombin are intraoperative mainstays ^{[10][11][12][13]}. Tranexamic acid reduced blood loss per square centimeter excised in a double-blind randomized trial in burns less than 30 percent TBSA (mean difference 0.28 milliliters per square centimeter, P less than 0.001), although postoperative hemoglobin was comparable between groups and no patient in either arm required transfusion ^[42]. A 2025 single-centre randomized trial of tranexamic acid versus placebo before surgical debridement reported lower intraoperative hemorrhage volume in the TXA arm (117 ± 51.7 ml versus 299.3 ± 88.9 ml, P = 0.0001) and zero transfusions versus six in the control arm (P = 0.002) ^[43]. Recombinant factor VIIa decreased the total number of blood components transfused per patient and the percentage full-thickness burn wound excised compared with placebo (0.9 versus 2.2 units, P = 0.0013) ^[44]. Fibrin sealant controlled bleeding at recipient and donor sites and was safe for use during excision and grafting ^[45][46][47]. Fibrin glue is as effective as staples for adhering skin grafts and trends toward lower hematoma and seroma rates ^[47].

Grafting and Coverage

Autograft Selection — Sheet, Mesh, and Thickness

Split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) cover the majority of acute burn wounds. Mesh ratios of 1:1, 1:1.5, 1:3, and wider expansions are selected by wound size, donor availability, and the visibility of the recipient site. In a randomized comparison of sheet versus 1:1 mesh, mean percentage of graft loss due to hematoma was higher in the sheet graft group (10 percent) than in the 1:1 mesh group (6 percent, P less than 0.062), and the authors concluded that 1:1 mesh graft is superior to sheet graft with regard to graft loss ^[48]. For paediatric hand burns, full-thickness skin grafts produced statistically significant reductions in post-graft contracture (odds ratio 0.35, P = 0.0001) and later surgical releases (odds ratio 0.06, P = 0.00001) compared with split-thickness skin grafts ^[25]. Perforator-based interposition flaps released contractures more effectively than full-thickness skin grafts at 3 and 12 months after burn scar contracture release (123 percent versus 87 percent at 3 months; 142 percent versus 92 percent at 12 months, P less than 0.001) ^[33].

Donor Site Management

Donor sites are recovery surfaces in their own right. In randomized donor-site comparisons, fibrin sealant reduced time to hemostasis significantly compared with painwise control (P less than 0.001), with no associated adverse events ^[46]. Detailed donor-site dressing comparisons are covered on the [[silver-based-topical-antimicrobials]] and [[non-silver-topical-antimicrobials]] pages.

Allograft Skin

Cadaveric allograft skin is a temporary biological cover that engrafts, vascularizes, and is later replaced by autograft. For larger mixed-depth burns, allograft skin is preferred for the category of larger burns of mixed depth usually presented to burn centres ^[49]. In low- and middle-income country health systems, allografts are rarely available and survival of patients with large burns is correspondingly limited ^[50]. A 2021 retrospective analysis found that 75 percent of allograft-related deaths occurred in patients receiving three or more simultaneous allografts ^[51].

Cultured Epithelial Autograft (CEA) and Cell-Based Therapies

CEA delivers autologous keratinocyte sheets cultured ex vivo, traditionally over a graft bed of remnant allodermis (Cuono technique) ^[52]. CEA take rates reported in the literature are inconsistent and vary significantly from 0 to 100 percent, and results from cultured epithelial autograft application have remained unpredictable ^[53]. Early excision followed by temporary coverage with homograft, allowed to engraft, has been associated with a low infection rate and a higher rate of CEA take ^[54]. When engrafted homograft is only partially excised, leaving a layer of allodermis as the graft bed, take averaged 90 percent in a 14-patient series ^[54]. Deep second-degree burns are an application of choice for cultured epithelia because the presence of dermis avoids retractions responsible for functional complications usually observed in third-degree burns where dermis is absent ^[17].

Engineered skin substitutes carrying autologous keratinocytes and fibroblasts in a collagen-glycosaminoglycan matrix reduced requirements for donor skin harvesting in excised, full-thickness burns greater than 50 percent TBSA, with qualitative outcome comparable to meshed autograft ^[55]. In a follow-up trial, autologous engineered skin substitute reduced mortality (6.25 percent in enrolled subjects versus 30.3 percent in a comparable National Burn Repository population, P less than 0.05) and donor skin harvest requirements ^[16].

Autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS, ReCell) delivers a non-cultured suspension of autologous epidermal cells through a point-of-care device. In a randomized comparison with conventional split-thickness skin grafts for deep partial-thickness burns, all patients received adequate epidermal replacement, but skin grafting was faster than ReCell (P less than 0.05) ^[56]. In a randomized non-inferiority trial of ReCell combined with widely meshed STSG versus standard STSG for mixed-depth burns, 92 percent of ReCell-treated wounds versus 85 percent of control-treated wounds were healed at 8 weeks, establishing non-inferiority for wound healing while substantially reducing donor-site need; mean ReCell donor area was approximately 40 times smaller than control ^[57][58]. A 2025 meta-analysis of nine studies enrolling 358 patients showed a statistically significant reduction in time to re-epithelialization with ASCS compared with control (mean difference -1.71 days, 95 percent CI -2.73 to -0.70, P = 0.001) ^[59]. A 2026 systematic review reported mean times to greater than 90 percent re-epithelialization ranging from 7 to 81 days with ASCS, with favorable aesthetic outcomes particularly in facial burns ^[60].

Meek Micrografting

Meek micrografting expands a square of autograft skin into 1:3 to 1:9 micrografts on a textile carrier, increasing useful coverage when donor sites are scarce. In a meta-analysis of 15 studies enrolling 821 extensively burned patients comparing Meek with traditional microskin grafting, survival rate of skin graft and primary healing rate were significantly higher in the Meek group (relative risks 0.76 and 0.66) and operation time, surgical treatment cost, wound healing time, and length of hospital stay were shorter ^[14]. In a paediatric RCT of Meek versus mesh, Meek take was 84.25 percent versus 71.5 percent for mesh (P = 0.006), with infection rates 25 percent versus 40 percent (P = 0.311), although operative time was longer with Meek (P less than 0.001) ^[15]. In a 2024 cohort comparing coverage strategies, length of stay was longest with cell-based therapy (91 ± 16 days) and shortest with Meek micrografting (50 ± 24 days) ^[61].

Dermal Templates

Dermal templates create a neodermis that is later overlaid with thin autograft. Integra (bovine collagen-glycosaminoglycan with silicone overlay) is the historical reference. In a randomized paediatric trial, Integra and control groups did not differ significantly in burn size (70 ± 5 percent versus 74 ± 4 percent TBSA), mortality (40 percent versus 30 percent), or length of stay (41 ± 4 versus 39 ± 4 days), supporting Integra for immediate wound coverage in children with severe burns without the associated risks of cadaver skin ^[62]. At 12-month follow-up of a head-to-head dermal-template trial, control sites showed lower skin graft contraction than Integra, Matriderm, and Pelnac groups (P less than 0.01 for Integra, P = 0.01 for Matriderm) ^[63]. Integra has shown later complete vascularization compared with split-thickness skin graft and viscose cellulose sponge in 10 adult patients with fascial-excised burn wounds ^[64]. A 2024 multinational consensus achieved agreement on 24 statements covering Integra application, including wound bed preparation, acellular dermal matrix application, definition of complete take, and timing of overlying autograft ^[65].

NovoSorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) is a fully synthetic polyurethane dermal template developed to address the limited availability of autologous donor skin for early debridement and grafting in extensive burns ^[66]. In a 2025 systematic review, 674 patients were treated with Integra and 288 with BTM; integration time prior to second-stage skin grafting was significantly longer with BTM than Integra (32.11 versus 18.4 days, P less than 0.01), and moderator-adjusted infection rate was higher with BTM than Integra (22.8 percent versus 2.96 percent, P = 0.0072), with no differences in average template take or infection-related reoperation rate ^[67].

Matriderm (bovine collagen I, III, V plus elastin hydrolysate) is applied in a single-stage technique with simultaneous split-thickness skin graft. In hand burn series, Matriderm proved suitable as a dermal substitute for the treatment of hand burns ^[68]. Cutometer measurements demonstrated better elastic qualities in the Matriderm group compared with the STSG group at follow-up ^[69]. Skin elasticity was considerably improved by Matriderm in combination with sheet autograft ^[70].

Synthetic and Biosynthetic Skin Substitutes

Suprathel (synthetic copolymer based on lactic acid) significantly reduced pain compared with controls in two RCT-segments and adhered rapidly to wounds, protecting against infection and promoting wound healing ^[71]. Suprathel showed significantly lower pain scores than Omiderm and better adherence to wounds ^[72]. In a 2021 systematic comparison, Suprathel had a significantly lower necessity for skin grafts and lower infection rate than porcine xenografts (P less than 0.001 for both), even though Suprathel-treated burns were nearly six times larger by TBSA than porcine xenograft-treated burns ^[92].

Biobrane is a knitted nylon mesh with porcine collagen used as a temporary biosynthetic cover for partial-thickness burns and donor sites. In a randomized comparison, length of hospital stay and wound healing time were significantly shorter in the Biobrane group ^[73]. Biobrane has been suggested as a triage and transport option for severe burns in military and mass casualty settings ^[74].

Coverage Strategies for Massive Burns

In burns greater than 50 percent TBSA, autograft donor sites are the rate-limiting variable. Engineered skin substitutes reduce requirements for donor skin harvesting for grafting of excised, full-thickness burns of greater than 50 percent TBSA with qualitative outcome comparable to meshed autograft ^[55]. Autologous engineered skin substitute reduced donor skin harvest needs and was associated with mortality of 6.25 percent in enrolled subjects versus 30.3 percent in a comparable National Burn Repository population (P less than 0.05) ^[16]. Meek micrografting expands available autograft and shortens length of stay relative to cell-based therapy in cohort comparison ^[61]. Allograft skin is preferred for the category of larger burns of mixed depth usually presented to burn centres ^[49]. CEA has historically been deployed in patients with very large burns: the average burn treated with one early CEA series was 70 percent TBSA, half of that being full-thickness ^[54].

In the temporal stack, a workable approach in the largest burns is staged excision with allograft cover, then either sequential autograft, Meek micrografting, dermal-template followed by thin autograft, or autologous skin cell suspension over widely meshed autograft, depending on donor availability and unit experience ^{[27][14][55][58]}. Mass casualty events stress this stack: in the 2015 Formosa Fun Coast event, more than 200 people were in critical condition with severe burns, and cultured epidermal autograft grafting contributed to wound closure and survival ^[75]. The 2025 Israeli mission to Armenia in a mass casualty burn incident concluded that preparation, defined needs, and a game plan according to which patients receive the best possible care relative to the situation are essential ^[76].

Adjuncts and Postoperative Care

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) over fresh skin grafts improves graft take and is particularly considered when wound bed and grafting conditions seem less than ideal ^[77]. A 2021 systematic review of NPWT including 466 patients showed promising results when used as initial treatment for burned children and after skin grafting ^[78]. A 2019 paediatric trial reported wound healing rates at post-injury day 14 and 21 of 49.8 ± 3.3 percent and 95.8 ± 2.4 percent in the negative-pressure group versus 40.0 ± 3.2 percent and 75.3 ± 2.5 percent in the conventional group (P less than 0.01) ^[79].

Anesthesia, Hemostasis, and Resuscitation Continuity

Burn excision is high-blood-loss surgery in physiologically unstable patients. Continuous metabolic monitoring demonstrates that early wound excision and wound closure, coupled with aggressive enteral nutritional support with high-protein formulas, do not prevent the marked hypermetabolism that accompanies thermal injury ^[80]. In a small pilot study, enteral nutrition could be re-initiated after the first excision and grafting in patients who previously tolerated gastric enteral nutrition meeting caloric goals and who returned from surgery hemodynamically stable ^[81]. Tranexamic acid, fibrin sealant, tourniquet, and tumescence reduce intraoperative blood loss ^{[10][11][12][42][45][46][47]}. Recombinant factor VIIa reduced transfusion requirements in a randomized comparison ^[44].

Anatomic Considerations

Hand and Upper Extremity

Hand burns appear in over 60 percent of burn cases and in fire mass casualty incidents up to 100 percent ^[82]. In a 88-patient retrospective protocol study of 143 hands, finger amputations, age on admission, importance of associated burn injury, and time to active rehabilitation predicted long-term hand function ^[83]. Early excision and skin grafting with physiotherapy gave better results than delayed grafting in terms of preservation of hand function and shortened hospital stay in a randomized trial ^[24]. In a more recent comparison of excision within five days versus longer delay using sheet grafts on hands, hand functions, daily activities, gross appearance, and pain sensation were better in the early-excision group ^[84]. Full-thickness skin grafts are linked with reduced post-graft contracture and the requirement for surgical release compared with split-thickness skin transplants in paediatric hand burns ^[25].

Face and Eyelids

In facial burns, 77 percent of facial burns that had been debrided enzymatically were found to be more superficially burned than initially estimated ^[19], underscoring the value of an iterative-depth approach in this anatomic location. Factors associated with the need for ocular surgery after facial burn include flame mechanism, periorbital edema, visual loss on presentation, increasing severity of eyelid and facial burns, severe corneal injury, lagophthalmos, and ectropion ^[85]. Aesthetic outcomes are favorable with autologous skin cell suspension in facial burns, where it reduced visible scarring and complications in a 2026 systematic review ^[60].

Pediatric

Paediatric burn surgery follows the same principles with two consistent modifications: the dermis is thinner and more dynamic in growth, and the rehabilitation horizon is longer. Patients with scald burns more often underwent further surgical eschar excision compared with controls (88.9 percent versus 52.8 percent, P = 0.016) in one comparative series ^[86]. Full-thickness skin grafts are preferred over split-thickness skin transplants for paediatric hand burns to reduce post-graft contracture and surgical release ^[25]. NPWT is feasible and effective in paediatric burns ^[78].

Special Populations

Elderly

Elderly burn patients have significantly higher mortality rates than younger patients with similar TBSA burns ^[6]. In two single-unit experiences, early excision and grafting in elderly patients did not improve survival and may have increased mortality, although it reduced infectious episodes and length of stay ^[6][22]. In a 2021 systematic review, mortality is lower in late excision compared with early excision in both low-income and high-income countries, with the elderly subgroup driving much of the high-income country signal ^[5]. Treatment is individualized; the population-level signal is that aggressive operative timelines may not transfer to the elderly burn patient.

Resource-Limited Settings

Many hospitals in low- and middle-income countries are capable of initial burn management and basic resuscitation, but deficiencies still exist in the capacity to systematically provide advanced burn care ^[87]. Low- and middle-income country health systems rarely have access to allografts, which may contribute to limited survival of patients with large burns ^[50]. Initial management of acute burns is generally available in low- and middle-income countries; however, it is constrained by inability to perform resuscitation (19 percent) and burn wound debridement (10 percent) in the surveyed centers ^[88]. In a 2025 systematic review, allogeneic skin grafts have shown promise in managing paediatric burns, especially in resource-limited settings where autografts or skin substitutes are not available ^[89].

Outcomes

Reported outcome dimensions for acute burn surgery include mortality, infection, length of hospital stay, re-epithelialization time, graft take, blood transfusion volume, post-graft contracture, range of motion, and patient-reported scar quality. In a meta-analysis of early excision versus traditional treatment, mortality was reduced in burns without inhalation injury (relative risk 0.36, 95 percent CI 0.20 to 0.65) and length of hospital stay was reduced (weighted mean difference -8.89 days), with higher transfusion as the principal trade-off ^[1]. Engineered skin substitute reduced mortality compared with a National Burn Repository comparison group ^[16]. Meek micrografting reduced length of stay compared with cell-based therapy alone ^[61] and improved survival of skin graft compared with traditional microskin grafting ^[14]. In paediatric hand burns, full-thickness grafts reduced post-graft contracture and the need for surgical release ^[25]. ASCS reduced time to re-epithelialization across a meta-analysis of nine studies ^[59].

Scar outcome remains the dominant late-phase concern. In porcine burn models, both early and late tangential excision followed by autografting reduce scarring ^[26]. Engineered dermal substitutes (Matriderm, Integra) measurably improve scar elasticity at follow-up, although graft contraction patterns vary among templates ^[63][70][69].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps

How Early is "Early"?

The mortality-reduction signal for early excision dates from 1980s to 2000s comparisons against expectant treatment that no longer reflects standard care anywhere with advanced burn capacity ^[1][4][23]. Contemporary practice excises within the first week; the within-5-day window has been studied directly in randomized hand-burn comparisons ^[24], although a more recent randomized comparison reports that, when sheet grafts are used on hands and all wounds heal within three weeks, the operative window may be relaxable from 10 days to 2 to 3 weeks ^[84]. No high-quality randomized trial has compared, for example, day-1 versus day-3 versus day-5 versus day-7 excision in the modern resuscitation era. The 2021 systematic review reporting lower mortality with late excision in low-income countries cannot be cleanly interpreted; variable definitions of age, timing, percent TBSA, inhalation injury, comorbidities, and unquantified resource access make the data difficult to interpret, and accurate conclusions on the role of timing alone cannot be drawn ^[5].

Tangential Versus Fascial Excision

Tangential excision is the dominant technique for non-massive burns, and fascial excision is reserved for very deep or infected wounds where rapid clearance is needed ^[36][35]. The literature supporting this division is older than the dermal-template, enzymatic-debridement, and ASCS literatures that have emerged since. There is no contemporary randomized comparison of tangential versus fascial excision in patients with burns greater than 50 percent TBSA, and the choice is driven by surgeon experience and unit protocol.

Where Does Enzymatic Debridement Sit?

Enzymatic debridement preserves viable dermis better than surgical excision in most direct comparisons ^{[18][19][20][21][41][90][91]}. The DETECT multicenter trial demonstrated complete eschar removal in over 90 percent of NexoBrid-treated patients with reduced surgery and blood loss ^[20]. Whether enzymatic debridement should be the default first-line treatment for deep partial-thickness burns of indeterminate depth, an adjunct to surgical excision in selected anatomic locations (hand, face), or a tool for circumferential burns on the cusp of escharotomy is not settled. The 2018 systematic review concluded that EDNX or Versajet are reasonable alternatives to standard care ^[40]. The 2026 hand-burn systematic review supports enzymatic debridement specifically for hand burns ^[41].

Cultured Cell Therapies and Autologous Skin Cell Suspension

CEA take rates remain unpredictable ^[53], and CEA results in the literature have varied widely from 0 to 100 percent. ASCS demonstrates non-inferiority to widely meshed STSG and donor-site reduction ^[57][58][59], but the clinical-effect ceiling versus standard split-thickness skin graft in non-massive burns and the cost-effectiveness threshold are unresolved. There remains extreme variability in clinical practice in wound bed preparation, application of cultured epithelial autografts, and postoperative wound care and rehabilitation practices ^[90].

Dermal Template Selection

Integra and BTM differ on integration time, infection rate, and unit cost ^[67]. Matriderm is a single-stage application combined with simultaneous skin grafting ^[68][70]. Pelnac and other matrices contribute additional options; in the available head-to-head dermal-template trial, all three matrices failed to prevent late skin-graft contraction, with Pelnac showing greater contraction than Matriderm and Integra ^[63]. Selection is unit-dependent and patient-dependent.

Outcomes Beyond Wound Closure

Mortality, length of stay, and re-epithelialization time dominate the published evidence base; patient-reported outcomes, return-to-work, hand function, and 12+ month scar quality are less consistently reported. The pediatric re-epithelialization model identifies burn depth, ethnicity, pain scores, TBSA, mechanism, and days to presentation as predictors of delayed healing ^[9]; whether dressing or graft choice modifies later scar or skin quality independent of healing speed is not established.

References

[1] Unknown. "Meta-analysis of early excision of burns." Burns 2006. PMID: 16414197 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16414197/

[2] Unknown. "Effect of fresh human amniotic membrane dressing on graft take in patients with chronic burn wounds compared with conventional methods." Burns 2013. PMID: 22951345 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22951345/

[3] Unknown. "Efficacy of debridement and wound cleansing with 2% hydrogen peroxide on graft take in the chronic-colonized burn wounds; a randomized controlled clinical trial." Burns 2013. PMID: 23561480 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23561480/

[4] Unknown. "A comparison of conservative versus early excision. Therapies in severely burned patients." Ann Surg 1989. PMID: 2650643 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2650643/

[5] Unknown. "Systematic review of excision and grafting in burns: Comparing outcomes of early and late surgery in low and high-income countries." Burns 2021. PMID: 34303572 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34303572/

[6] Unknown. "Early excision and grafting versus conservative management of burns in the elderly." Plast Reconstr Surg 1998. PMID: 9734417 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9734417/

[7] Unknown. "Comparison of the Application of Allogeneic Fibroblast and Autologous Mesh Grafting With the Conventional Method in the Treatment of Third-Degree Burns." J Burn Care Res 2016. PMID: 22683986 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22683986/

[8] Unknown. "Accuracy of early burn depth assessment by laser Doppler imaging on different days post burn." Burns 2009. PMID: 18952377 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18952377/

[9] Unknown. "Predictors of re-epithelialization in pediatric burn." Burns 2014. PMID: 24184285 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24184285/

[10] Unknown. "Sequential excision and grafting of the burn injuries of 1507 patients treated between 19​67 and 19​86: end results and the determinants of death." J Burn Care Rehabil 1996. PMID: 8675503 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8675503/

[11] Unknown. "[The application of tourniquet in burn patients during tangential excision on the extremities]." Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi 2002. PMID: 12515648 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12515648/

[12] Unknown. "The use of tourniquets in the excision of unexsanguinated extremity burn wounds." Burns 2002. PMID: 12417166 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12417166/

[13] Unknown. "The tumescent technique to significantly reduce blood loss during burn surgery." Burns 2001. PMID: 11718986 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11718986/

[14] Unknown. "[Meta-analysis of clinical effects of microskin grafting and Meek microskin grafting in repairing extensively deep burn wounds]." Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi 2020. PMID: 32842403 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32842403/

[15] Unknown. "Comparative study between skin micrografting (Meek technique) and meshed skin grafts in paediatric burns." Burns 2022. PMID: 35248428 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35248428/

[16] Unknown. "Randomized, Paired-Site Comparison of Autologous Engineered Skin Substitutes and Split-Thickness Skin Graft for Closure of Extensive, Full-Thickness Burns." J Burn Care Res 2017. PMID: 27404165 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27404165/

[17] Unknown. "Advantages of using a bank of allogenic keratinocytes for the rapid coverage of extensive and deep second-degree burns." Med Biol Eng Comput 2000. PMID: 10829421 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10829421/

[18] Unknown. "Escharotomy using an enzymatic debridement agent for treating experimental burn-induced compartment syndrome in an animal model." J Trauma 2005. PMID: 15995479 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15995479/

[19] Unknown. "Enzymatic debridement of deeply burned faces: Healing and early scarring based on tissue preservation compared to traditional surgical debridement." Burns 2017. PMID: 28363663 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28363663/

[20] Unknown. "Early Enzymatic Burn Debridement: Results of the DETECT Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial." J Burn Care Res 2024. PMID: 37715999 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37715999/

[21] Unknown. "Bromelain-Based Enzymatic Debridement Versus Standard of Care in Deep Burn Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." J Burn Care Res 2025. PMID: 39259807 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39259807/

[22] Unknown. "An early surgical approach to burns in the elderly." J Trauma 1990. PMID: 2325174 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2325174/

[23] Unknown. "Effect of early excision on patients with major thermal injury." J Trauma 1987. PMID: 3820353 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3820353/

[24] Unknown. "Evaluation of hand function after early excision and skin grafting of burns versus delayed skin grafting: a randomized clinical trial." Burns 2011. PMID: 21276660 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21276660/

[25] Unknown. "Full thickness skin graft versus split thickness skin graft in paediatric patients with hand burns: Systematic review and meta-analysis." Burns 2023. PMID: 36280545 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36280545/

[26] Unknown. "Early versus Delayed Excision and Grafting of Full-Thickness Burns in a Porcine Model: A Randomized Study." Plast Reconstr Surg 2016. PMID: 27219266 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27219266/

[27] Unknown. "Effect of sequential early burn wound excision and closure on postburn oxygen consumption." Crit Care Med 1991. PMID: 2055072 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2055072/

[28] Unknown. "Cost-Effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care in The Netherlands: A Randomized Controlled Trial." Plast Reconstr Surg 2016. PMID: 26710049 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26710049/

[29] Unknown. "Escharotomy and decompressive therapies in burns." J Burn Care Res 2009. PMID: 19692906 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19692906/

[30] Unknown. "[Early treatment of third degree burns of the entire hand]." Zhonghua Zheng Xing Shao Shang Wai Ke Za Zhi 1989. PMID: 2509045 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2509045/

[31] Unknown. "Early tangential excision and skin grafting of moderate burns is superior to honey dressing: a prospective randomised trial." Burns 1999. PMID: 10630854 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10630854/

[32] Unknown. "Effect of topical and subcutaneous epinephrine in combination with topical thrombin in blood loss during immediate near-total burn wound excision in pediatric burned patients." Burns 1999. PMID: 10498359 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10498359/

[33] Unknown. "Perforator-Based Interposition Flaps Perform Better Than Full-Thickness Grafts for the Release of Burn Scar Contractures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial." Plast Reconstr Surg 2017. PMID: 28121892 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121892/

[34] Unknown. "Outcomes of post burn flexion contracture release under tourniquet versus tumescent technique in children." Burns 2018. PMID: 29454711 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29454711/

[35] Unknown. "Operative management of acute pavement burns: a case series." J Wound Care 2014. PMID: 25375404 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25375404/

[36] Unknown. "Effect of graft bed on long-term functional results of extremity skin grafts." J Burn Care Rehabil 1988. PMID: 3281958 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3281958/

[37] Unknown. "Versajet hydrosurgery versus classic escharectomy for burn débridment: a prospective randomized trial." J Burn Care Res 2007. PMID: 17667835 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17667835/

[38] Unknown. "Prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing Versajet™ hydrosurgery and conventional debridement of partial thickness paediatric burns." Burns 2015. PMID: 25724103 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25724103/

[39] Unknown. "Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial-thickness burns." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020. PMID: 32882071 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32882071/

[40] Unknown. "Time to start putting down the knife: A systematic review of burns excision tools of randomised and non-randomised trials." Burns 2018. PMID: 29456099 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29456099/

[41] Unknown. "Assessing Hand Function Post-Burn: A Systematic Review of Surgical vs. Enzymatic Debridement Using DASH/Quick-DASH and MHQ Questionnaires." Int Wound J 2026. PMID: 41882984 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41882984/

[42] Unknown. "Effect of single dose intravenous tranexamic acid on blood loss in tangential excision of burn wounds - A double blind randomised controlled trial." Burns 2022. PMID: 34952736 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34952736/

[43] Unknown. "Comparative efficacy of tranexamic acid versus placebo on hemostatic outcomes after the surgical debridement of burn patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial." Burns 2025. PMID: 39721243 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39721243/

[44] Unknown. "Recombinant FVIIa decreases perioperative blood transfusion requirement in burn patients undergoing excision and skin grafting--results of a single centre pilot study." Burns 2007. PMID: 17382476 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17382476/

[45] Unknown. "Multicenter trial to evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of pooled human fibrin sealant for the treatment of burn wounds." J Trauma 1999. PMID: 10088846 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10088846/

[46] Unknown. "A multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the topical hemostatic efficacy of fibrin sealant in burn patients." J Burn Care Rehabil 2001. PMID: 11302613 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11302613/

[47] Unknown. "Fibrin tissue sealant and minor skin grafts in burn surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019. PMID: 30642795 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30642795/

[48] Unknown. "Comparing outcomes of sheet grafting with 1:1 mesh grafting in patients with thermal burns: a randomized trial." Burns 2015. PMID: 25175303 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25175303/

[49] Unknown. "A randomised clinical trial comparing a hydrocolloid-derived dressing and glycerol preserved allograft skin in the management of partial thickness burns." Burns 2003. PMID: 14556729 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14556729/

[50] Unknown. "Lessons Learned From Implementation and Management of Skin Allograft Banking Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review." J Burn Care Res 2020. PMID: 32504535 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32504535/

[51] Unknown. "Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation in Burn Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." J Burn Care Res 2021. PMID: 33091131 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33091131/

[52] Unknown. "From skin allograft coverage to allograft-micrograft sandwich method: A retrospective review of severe burn patients who received conjunctive application of cultured epithelial autografts." Burns 2018. PMID: 29475746 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29475746/

[53] Unknown. "A systematic review: Current trends and take rates of cultured epithelial autografts in the treatment of patients with burn injuries." Wound Repair Regen 2019. PMID: 31293060 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31293060/

[54] Unknown. "Addendum: multicenter experience with cultured epidermal autograft for treatment of burns." J Burn Care Rehabil 1992. PMID: 1572850 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1572850/

[55] Unknown. "Cultured skin substitutes reduce requirements for harvesting of skin autograft for closure of excised, full-thickness burns." J Trauma 2006. PMID: 16612303 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16612303/

[56] Unknown. "A randomized trial comparing ReCell system of epidermal cells delivery versus classic skin grafts for the treatment of deep partial thickness burns." Burns 2007. PMID: 17904748 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17904748/

[57] Unknown. "A Comparative Study of the ReCell® Device and Autologous Spit-Thickness Meshed Skin Graft in the Treatment of Acute Burn Injuries." J Burn Care Res 2018. PMID: 29800234 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29800234/

[58] Unknown. "Demonstration of the safety and effectiveness of the RECELL® System combined with split-thickness meshed autografts for the reduction of donor skin to treat mixed-depth burn injuries." Burns 2019. PMID: 30578048 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30578048/

[59] Unknown. "Effect of Autologous Skin Cell Suspensions Versus Standard Treatment on Re-Epithelialization in Burn Injuries: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs." Medicina (Kaunas) 2025. PMID: 40142341 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40142341/

[60] Unknown. "Autologous Skin Cell Suspension (ASCS) in Pediatric Burn Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." J Burn Care Res 2026. PMID: 40971796 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40971796/

[61] Unknown. "Outcome comparison of the most commonly employed wound coverage techniques in patients with massive burns ≥50% TBSA - A systematic review and meta-analysis." Burns 2024. PMID: 39322501 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39322501/

[62] Unknown. "Longitudinal assessment of Integra in primary burn management: a randomized pediatric clinical trial." Crit Care Med 2007. PMID: 17828040 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17828040/

[63] Unknown. "Evaluation of contraction of the split-thickness skin graft using three dermal matrices in the treatment of burn contractures: A randomised clinical trial." Wound Repair Regen 2022. PMID: 35141977 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35141977/

[64] Unknown. "Prospective study on burns treated with Integra®, a cellulose sponge and split thickness skin graft: comparative clinical and histological study--randomized controlled trial." Burns 2013. PMID: 23880091 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23880091/

[65] Unknown. "Use of Integra dermal regeneration template in burn patients: An Italian expert consensus Delphi study." Burns 2024. PMID: 39418837 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39418837/

[66] Unknown. "Wound healing and dermal regeneration in severe burn patients treated with NovoSorb® Biodegradable Temporising Matrix: A prospective clinical study." Burns 2022. PMID: 34407914 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34407914/

[67] Unknown. "Integra® versus Novosorb® biodegradable temporizing matrix for burn wounds: a comparative systematic review and meta analysis." Burns 2025. PMID: 41192209 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41192209/

[68] Unknown. "First experiences with the collagen-elastin matrix Matriderm as a dermal substitute in severe burn injuries of the hand." Burns 2007. PMID: 17240532 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17240532/

[69] Unknown. "Burn Scar Evaluation Using the Cutometer® MPA 580 in Comparison to 'Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale' and 'Vancouver Scar Scale'." J Burn Care Res 2018. PMID: 29596600 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29596600/

[70] Unknown. "Dermal substitution with Matriderm(®) in burns on the dorsum of the hand." Burns 2010. PMID: 20554395 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20554395/

[71] Unknown. "Suprathel-an innovative, resorbable skin substitute for the treatment of burn victims." Burns 2007. PMID: 17084030 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17084030/

[72] Unknown. "Suprathel, a new skin substitute, in the management of partial-thickness burn wounds: results of a clinical study." Ann Plast Surg 2008. PMID: 18216512 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18216512/

[73] Unknown. "Biobrane versus 1% silver sulfadiazine in second-degree pediatric burns." Plast Reconstr Surg 2000. PMID: 10626971 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626971/

[74] Unknown. "A comparison of Biobrane™ and cadaveric allograft for temporizing the acute burn wound: Cost and procedural time." Burns 2015. PMID: 25458501 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25458501/

[75] Unknown. "First experience using cultured epidermal autografts in Taiwan for burn victims of the Formosa Fun Coast Water Park explosion, as part of Japanese medical assistance." Burns 2016. PMID: 26818956 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26818956/

[76] Unknown. "The Israeli mission to the 20​23 Armenian burn mass casualty incident - Lessons learned." Burns 2025. PMID: 40424673 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40424673/

[77] Unknown. "A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing negative pressure dressing and conventional dressing methods on split-thickness skin grafts in burned patients." Burns 2011. PMID: 21723044 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21723044/

[78] Unknown. "Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Pediatric Burn Patients: A Systematic Review." Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2021. PMID: 32320366 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32320366/

[79] Unknown. "[Preliminary effect observation on the application of micro-negative pressure in children with small-area deep partial-thickness burn]." Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi 2019. PMID: 31658542 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31658542/

[80] Unknown. "Enteral nutritional support and wound excision and closure do not prevent postburn hypermetabolism as measured by continuous metabolic monitoring." J Trauma 2000. PMID: 11038084 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11038084/

[81] Unknown. "A pilot review of gradual versus goal re-initiation of enteral nutrition after burn surgery in the hemodynamically stable patient." Burns 2014. PMID: 24997527 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24997527/

[82] Unknown. "The entity of thermal-crush-avulsion hand injury (hot-press roller burns) treated with fast acting debriding enzymes (nexobrid): literature review and report of first case." Ann Burns Fire Disasters 2018. PMID: 30174569 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30174569/

[83] Unknown. "The prognostic factors regarding long-term functional outcome of full-thickness hand burns." Burns 1999. PMID: 10630851 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10630851/

[84] Unknown. "Effects of Early Versus Delayed Excision and Grafting on Restoring the Functionality of Deep Burn-Injured Hands: A Double-Blind, Randomized Parallel Clinical Trial." J Burn Care Res 2019. PMID: 30875425 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30875425/

[85] Unknown. "Risk Factors for Ocular Burn Injuries Requiring Surgery." J Burn Care Res 2017. PMID: 27355655 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27355655/

[86] Unknown. "Enzymatic debridement in scalds is not as effective as in flame burns regarding additional eschar excision: A retrospective matched-control study." Burns 2022. PMID: 34627661 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34627661/

[87] Unknown. "Burn management capacity in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review of 458 hospitals across 14 countries." Int J Surg 2014. PMID: 25152443 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25152443/

[88] Unknown. "Assessment of Acute Burn Management in 32 Low- and Middle-Income Countries." World J Surg 2016. PMID: 26661635 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26661635/

[89] Unknown. "Availability, effectiveness and safety of cadaveric and fresh allogeneic skin grafts in pediatric burn care-a review." Cell Tissue Bank 2025. PMID: 40088353 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40088353/

[90] Unknown. "Major Burn Injury Successfully Treated With Cultured Epithelial Autografts, a Case Series Presentation: Establishing Standard Clinical Practices." J Burn Care Res 2023. PMID: 34309679 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34309679/

[91] Unknown. "Eschar removal by bromelain based enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid®) in burns: An European consensus." Burns 2017. PMID: 29033046 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29033046/

[92] Unknown. "Porcine Xenograft and Epidermal Fully Synthetic Skin Substitutes in the Treatment of Partial-Thickness Burns: A Literature Review." Medicina (Kaunas) 2021. PMID: 33946298 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33946298/