Comparison of meshed versus MEEK micrografted skin expansion rate: Claimed, achieved, and polled results

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 128, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Lumenta, David Benjamin ^a   Kamolz, Lars Peter ^a   Keck, Maike ^a   Frey, Manfred ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; SKIN TRANSPLANTATION; STATISTICS; TISSUE EXPANSION;

HUMANS; SKIN TRANSPLANTATION; TISSUE EXPANSION;

EID: 79960006984     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318217463a     Document Type: Note

References (5)

1. Peeters R, Hubens A. The mesh skin graft: True expansion rate. Burns Incl Therm Inj. 1988;14:239-240.
2. Vandeput J, Nelissen M, Tanner JC, Boswick J. A review of skin meshers. Burns 1995;21:364-370.
3. Fifer TD, Pieper D, Hawtof D. Contraction rates of meshed, nonexpanded split-thickness skin grafts versus split-thickness sheet grafts. Ann Plast Surg. 1993;31:162-163. (Pubitemid 23238581)
4. Lumenta DB, Kamolz LP, Frey M. Adult burn patients with more than 60% TBSA involved-Meek and other techniques to overcome restricted skin harvest availability: The Viennese Concept. J Burn Care Res. 2009;30:231-242.
5. Erba P, Ogawa R, Vyas R, Orgill DP. The reconstructive matrix: A new paradigm in reconstructive plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:492-498.