Clinical comparison of commercially available Biobrane preparations

This prospective clinical comparison of the three commercially available Biobrane preparations indicated that: (1) All three products of Biobrane are excellent skin substitutes. (2) Regular Biobrane has satisfactory wound adherence, however, its non-porous structure allows limited wound drainage. Because of this, it had the highest incidence of haematoma and fluid accumulation (13.3 per cent) and delayed epithelialization (18.8 per cent) of the three products. (3) Thin Porous Biobrane has poor adherence which limits patient activity and provides poor pain relief. The infection rate of 10 per cent was the highest of the three products. (4) Regular Porous Biobrane demonstrated superiority to the other two Biobrane products in this study. It provided good wound adherence while maintaining wound drainage because of its porous structure. The incidence of blood or fluid accumulation (7.1 per cent) was the lowest in the three products. (5) Most of the complications such as infection, delayed epithelialization, pain and activity impairment were related to fluid or blood accumulation. Adherence was found to be more important and reliable than pore structure. Operative haemostasis thus should be emphasized when using porous Biobrane, as with all skin substitutes.