Skip to main content

Advertisement

ADVERTISEMENT

Peer Review

Peer Reviewed

Case Q&A

Cultured Epithelial Autograft

Stephen M. Milner, MBBS, BDS, DSc (Hon), FRCSE, FACS

December 2023
1937-5719
ePlasty 2023;23:QA14
© 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. 

Questions

  1. What are cultured epithelial autografts?
  2. What are the indications for the use of cultured epithelial autografts?
  3. What are the limitations of cultured epithelial autografts?
  4. How can the limitations of cultured epithelial autografts be overcome?

Case Description

A 21-year-old male presented with a full-thickness flame burn that affected 90% of his body surface area. Immediate medical attention was focused on airway management, fluid resuscitation, and prevention of organ failure, and multiple escharotomies were performed. He subsequently underwent staged excision of his burns, and the wounds were temporarily covered with human cadaver allograft. A 2-cm2 skin biopsy specimen was procured from the abdominal wall at the time of the initial excision on the third postburn day. This specimen was expanded in the laboratory over 3 weeks. Autograft was harvested from an area on his unburned thigh, and the allograft was removed. The wounds were treated with cultured epithelial autograft (CEA) and laid over a 4:1 meshed autologous split-thickness skin graft. This technology played a vital role in allowing the patient to survive a massive burn injury and achieve a reasonable quality of life (Figure 1).1

Figure
Figure 1. (A) A full-thickness skin biopsy was harvested from the abdominal wall and sent for culture. (B) The anterior trunk was excised to the fascia. (C) Epicel provides sheets of cultured epithelial autografts attached with stainless steel surgical clips to a backing of petrolatum-impregnated gauze, each measuring approximately 50 cm2. Each graft was packaged in sterile, buffered, serum-free, Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium.15 (D) The anterior trunk was covered with 4:1 meshed autograft. (E) The cultured epithelial autograft was lifted from the culture dishes, placed over the autograft, and stapled into position. (F) The appearance at the first clinical takedown of the dressing on postoperative day 7 revealed a confluence of epithelial cells between the interstices of the autograft. (G) The appearance of the anterior trunk 1 year later. The bandage on the abdomen concealed an abrasion.

Q1. What are cultured epithelial autografts?

CEA are cohesive sheets of autologous keratinocytes grown in tissue culture and transferred to the surface of a wound. The successful culture was described by Rheinwald and Green in the mid-1970s.2 Keratinocytes were isolated from a full-thickness skin biopsy using enzymatic digestion and expanded in vitro by serial subcultivation in a medium containing fetal bovine serum overlying a feeder layer of lethally irradiated mouse 3T3 fibroblasts.3 Epidermal growth factor and cholera toxin, a stimulant of cellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (AMP) formation, were also added to accelerate colony formation. The role of the fibroblasts is unclear but is thought to aid keratinocyte growth and inhibit fibroblast growth. There is a concern, however, that transplanting a xenobiotic cell line carries a risk of disease transmission and immunological rejection. Improved culture media have since allowed keratinocytes to be cultured without the fibroblast feeder layer.4 

Delicate and confluent sheets of epithelial cells can be detached from the culture dish by the enzyme dispase and then clipped to a backing of petrolatum-impregnated gauze before transfer to the wound bed. Within 3 to 4 weeks, sheets of keratinocytes can be grown 8 to10 cells thick and can exceed expansion ratios of 1:10,000, producing sufficient cultured epithelium to cover the entire surface of an average-sized adult. An 8-year study by Compton et al, performing serial biopsies on patients treated with CEA, reported that at transplantation the grafts appeared as unevenly stratified sheets of keratinocytes lacking both granular and cornified cell layers. However, by 6 days post-grafting, CEA differentiated into all normal epidermal strata, and Langerhans cells, melanocytes, and Merkel cells repopulated the CEA during the first year.5

Q2. What are the indications for the use of cultured epithelial autografts?

Since the first clinical application was reported in 1981, the use of CEA has had a considerable impact on the treatment of patients with massive burns.6,7,8 The FDA has approved Epicel in the United States for use on patients with burns greater than 30% total body surface area under a Humanitarian Device Exemption. Several reports indicate the use of CEA for covering large wounds, including those caused by venous insufficiency, sickle cell anemia, surgical wounds,9 and excision of giant congenital nevi.10 More recently, the retroviral transduction of the LAMB3 gene into autologous keratinocytes has been successfully used to correct junctional epidermolysis bullosa, a blistering disease due to a mutation of LAM5, a gene that codes for the basement membrane component laminin 332.11

Q3. What are the limitations of cultured epithelial autografts?

Reports regarding the use of CEA for permanent coverage of burns have shown inconsistent and often disappointing results. Blight et al reported suboptimal engraftment rates with graft take ranging from 0 to 98% with a mean value of 15%. Notably, high values were observed on wounds prepared with allograft, presumably due to enhanced vascularization.12 CEA is also friable and easily susceptible to shearing forces, with poor durability and spontaneous blistering or avulsion. These limitations can be attributed to the absence of dermis, basement membrane, mature hemidesmosomes, and anchoring fibrils at the attachment face until 3 to 4 weeks after grafting, as well as an absence of rete ridges for a further 5 to 18 months.5 Keratinocyte basement membrane proteins are also lost during the enzymatic detachment of the CEA sheets from the culture flasks by dispase. Late results have been unsatisfactory with substantial graft contraction, hypertrophic scarring, and hypopigmentation.

CEA is susceptible to infection by bacteria and fungi due to its vulnerability to proteases and cytotoxins during the first week of maturation. Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, Candida, Acinetobacter, Enterococcus, Proteus, Serratia, and Aspergillus are particularly detrimental to the adherence and viability of cultured keratinocytes. 

Other disadvantages include a 3- to 4-week delay in obtaining grafts, high costs, and increased hospitalizations compared with the use of split-thickness autografts.13 

Q4. How can the limitations of cultured epithelial autografts be overcome?

The stability of CEA can be improved by the provision of a dermal bed. One technique involves applying CEA to a mechanically de-epithelialized allogeneic skin transplant, which improves bonding by creating a non-antigenic allodermis for CEA engraftment.14 However, this technique necessitates a 2-stage procedure and may be complicated by the loss of allograft and infection. An alternative method is to place the CEA over widely meshed autograft (Figure 1E). Careful handling is required to reduce the shearing of the delicate grafts, which places a huge burden on the patient and staff.1 They are also best confined to the anterior surfaces of the body. The lower limbs can be grafted circumferentially with the aid of external fixation to elevate them off the bed. Postoperatively the wound should remain undisturbed for 7 to 10 days.

The susceptibility of grafts to infection demands strict sterile precautions during dressing changes. Before CEA is applied, wound infections must be adequately treated. The use of antibiotics is guided by quantitative cultures and prescribed even for bacterial counts lower than 103/mm3. In the case described, the CEA was treated with gentamycin spray and left open to the air. 

Acknowledgments

Affiliation: Professor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (Ret.)

Correspondence: Stephen M. Milner, MBBS, BDS, DSc (Hon), FRCSE, FACS; stephenmilner123@gmail.com

Disclosures: The author discloses no relevant conflict of interest or financial disclosures for this manuscript.

References

1.        Milner SM, Fauerbach JA, Hahn A, et al. Cody. Eplasty. 2015;15:e35. Published 2015 Aug 6.

2.        Rheinwald JG, Green H. Serial cultivation of strains of human epidermal keratinocytes: the formation of keratinizing colonies from single cells. Cell. 1975;6(3):331-343. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(75)80001-8

3.        Hynds RE, Bonfanti P, Janes SM. Regenerating human epithelia with cultured stem cells: feeder cells, organoids and beyond. EMBO Mol Med. 2018;10(2):139-150. doi:10.15252/emmm.201708213

4.        Coolen NA, Verkerk M, Reijnen L, et al. Culture of keratinocytes for transplantation without the need of feeder layer cells. Cell Transplant. 2007;16(6):649-661. doi:10.3727/000000007783465046

5.        Compton CC. Cultured epithelial autografts: Skin regeneration and wound healing. A long-term biospy study. Skin Research. 1996;38(1):148-159. doi:10.11340/skinresearch1959.38.148

6.        O’Connor NE, Mulliken JB, Banks-Schlegel S, Kehinde O, Green H. Grafting of burns with cultured epithelium prepared from autologous epidermal cells. Lancet. 1981;317(8211):75-78. doi:org/10.1016/S0140-6736(81)90006-4

7.        Gallico GG 3rd, O’Connor NE, Compton CC, Kehinde O, Green H. Permanent coverage of large burn wounds with autologous cultured human epithelium. N Engl J Med. 1984;311(7):448-451. doi:10.1056/NEJM198408163110706

8.        Cirodde A, Leclerc T, Jault P, Duhamel P, Lataillade JJ, Bargues L. Cultured epithelial autografts in massive burns: a single-center retrospective study with 63 patients. Burns. 2011;37(6):964-972. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2011.03.011

9.        Hefton JM, Caldwell D, Biozes DG, Balin AK, Carter DM. Grafting of skin ulcers with cultured autologous epidermal cells. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986;14(399-405). doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(86)70048-0

10.      Gallico GG 3rd, O’Connor NE, Compton CC, Remensnyder JP, Kehinde O, Green H. Cultured epithelial autografts for giant congenital nevi. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;84(1):1-9. doi:10.1097/00006534-198907000-00001

11.      Mavilio F, Pellegrini G, Ferrari S, et al. Correction of junctional epidermolysis bullosa by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal stem cells. Nat Med. 2006;12(12):1397-1402. doi:10.1038/nm1504

12.      Blight A, Mountford EM, Cheshire IM, Clancy JM, Levick PL. Treatment of full skin thickness burn injury using cultured epithelial grafts. Burns. 1991;17(6):495-498. doi:10.1016/0305-4179(91)90079-v

13.      Munster AM. Cultured skin for massive burns: A prospective, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 1996;224(3):372-377. doi:10.1097/00000658-199609000-00013

14.      Cuono C, Langdon R, McGuire J. Use of cultured epidermal autografts and dermal allografts as skin replacement after burn injury. Lancet. 1986;1(8490):1123-1124. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)91838-6

15.      Genzyme Biosurgery. Epicel® Cultured Epidermal Autografts (CEA) HDE# 990002. Patient Information.; 2007. Accessed November 9, 2022. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/H990002d.pdf 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement