[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.241.199. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Citations 0
Original Article
April 2001

Editorial Comment

Author Affiliations

850 Parnassus Ave
Suite 207
San Francisco, CA 94143
(e-mail: csmaa@orca.ucsf.edu

 

850 Parnassus Ave
 Suite 207
 San Francisco, CA 94143
 (e-mail: csmaa@orca.ucsf.edu

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001;3(2):103. doi:

Dr Sclafani et al are to be commended in their attempt to better characterize the behavior of implanted homograft dermis. Their study demonstrates expected remodeling seen in all tissue grafts as well as benefits of tissue compliance and compatibility. As it relates to the comparison to collagen, the description "clearly superior" might be overstated. An acelluar dermal graft (Alloderm; LifeCell Corp, Branchburg, NJ) shows clearly longer persistence, but is considerably more technically difficult and cannot be done as a simple office visit. Patients who receive a homograft dermal-implant also have a longer recovery. One must conclude that for intermediate-term augmentation 6 to 15 months of an acellular dermal graft is a good option. But for short-term improvements with minimal patient "downtime," intradermal type I bovine collagen cross-linked with glutaraldehyde (Zyplast; Collegen Corp, Palo Alto, Calif) or human tissue (Dermalogen Human Tissue Matrix; Collagenesis Inc, Beverly, Calif) are better options.

×