Background: An extracellular matrix (ECM) is a network of proteins and other molecules that provide support and structure to cells and tissues in the body. Since its discovery in 1930, researchers have reproduced the ECM through an array of evolving technologies, developing products that accelerate healing times, minimize scarring, and reduce pain. When selecting which ECM product to use, physicians rely on personal experience while considering wound location, type of tissue lost, exposed structures, chronicity, and even the patient's religious preferences. While comparison trials between a few different types of ECMs exist, there lacks a thorough investigation that assesses a majority of ECMs against each other.
Methods: Herein, we conducted a literature review using the PubMed database and utilized 71 articles to identify the best ECM for wound healing and positive patient outcomes. The primary search terms included extracellular matrix, xenograft, porcine, bovine, allograft, bioengineered matrix, acellularized fish skin, wounds, wound healing, and wound care. We did not exclude any specific type of research, but predominantly reviewed clinical trials, case series, and other review articles. We focused on the most popular and commonly used ECMs and constructed our results into the Table.
Results: We compared the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of each ECM and concisely illustrated these findings to provide a guide on how to select an ECM (Table). Allografts, whether they are glycerol or cryopreserved, suffice as a treatment choice and are superior to exposure healing. However, they do not produce healing at the same rate or quality as bioengineered matrices, porcine and bovine xenografts, or acellularized fish skin (AFS). Bioengineered matrices and porcine and bovine xenografts offer antimicrobial properties, low immunogenicity, cost effectiveness, and availability. The compromise with these ECMs is with healing times and cosmesis. Acellularized fish skin (AFS) provides diverse utility, antimicrobial activity, low immunogenicity, faster healing times, and cosmetic superiority. However, AFS yields a potential cost burden and is not plentiful or easily accessible in some parts of the world.
Conclusions: Our findings assist in removing the subjectivity component of selecting an ECM and suggest further comparison or head-to-head trials would yield a more algorithmic approach to wound healing. We suggest to consider implementing the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score as an additional objective comparison method in these future trials.
Keywords: Extracellular Matrix; Wound Care.
© 2023 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved. Any views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and/or participants and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy, or position of ePlasty or HMP Global, their employees, and affiliates.