Systematic review evaluates wound healing outcomes with bilayered dermal substitutes among adults, suggesting improved surgical treatment options.
Objective: The objective of this systematic review will be to evaluate the effectiveness of the bilayered dermal substitute, Biodegradable Temporising Matrix (BTM), compared with other wound management options in improving clinical outcomes for adults with wounds requiring surgical intervention. Introduction: Dermal substitutes provide physiological wound cover for major burns, traumatic wounds, necrotizing fasciitis, diabetes, oncological resections, and previously non-graftable wound beds. Bilayered dermal substitutes such as BTM are designed to provide immediate coverage to an area of skin loss, with subsequent skin grafting to restore structure and function. Eligibility criteria: This review will consider studies on adult patients (18 years or older) with wounds of any etiology or severity requiring surgical intervention. Studies will be considered if they evaluate surgical treatment for wounds using BTM, with or without negative pressure wound therapy, compared with any other surgical technique. Methods: This review will adhere to the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The following databases will be searched for published studies: PubMed, Embase (Ovid), and CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCOhost). Unpublished studies, gray literature, conference presentations, and posters will also be considered. The searches will be conducted from database inception till the present, with no language limitations. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria, followed by full-text screening. Eligible studies will be critically appraised at the outcome/result level for methodological quality using JBI’s standardized critical appraisal instruments. Data will be extracted and pooled in statistical meta-analysis. The results will be reported in tables, visual format, and narrative format. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024595778
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Middleton et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: