Table 3.
Clinical evidence for ADMs in wound care and ulcers.
Authors | Product name(s), Material | Usage, Population | Summary findings |
---|---|---|---|
Case series and case reports | |||
Pontell et al. (2018) | Integra™, BADM |
Lower-extremity wound reconstruction 8 patients: 4 with all components and 4 with only RSAF and STSG |
|
Retrospective studies | |||
Paredes et al. (2017) | PriMatrix®, FBADM | Chronic, large venous leg ulcers 33 patients, 40 total wounds Excluded: Those with non- CEAP class 6 wounds |
|
Prospective studies | |||
Cazzell et al. (2019) | DermACELL®, HADM |
VLUs 28 patients: 18 utilising D-ADM and 10 without |
|
Kavros et al. (2014) | PriMatrix®, FBADM | DFUs 46 patients completed (out of 55) Mean age: 61 ± 14 years Mean BMI: 28.9 ± 4.3 BMI of 38 or less Those with comorbidities were excluded |
|
ADM, acellular dermal matrix; BADM, bovine acellular dermal matrix; CEAP, clinical aetiology anatomy pathophysiology; DFU, diabetic foot ulcer; FBADM, fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix; HADM, human acellular dermal matrix; NPWT, negative pressure wound therapy; RSAF, reverse sural adipofascial flap; STSG, split-thickness skin graft; TBSA, total body surface area; VLU, venous leg ulcer.