TDNet Discover

Background: Biological dressings and skin grafts have become standard procedures for wound care due to their ability to reduce the risk of complicated infections and aid in speeding up healing times in difficult to manage wounds. Currently utilized skin grafts come from various sources, ranging from autografts (using the patient’s own skin), allografts (human donor), and xenografts (grafts derived from non-human species). Objective: To determine if existing literature shows sufficient evidence that xenografts of fish skin can decrease healing time when compared to current standards of care for wound care treatment. Methods: An evidence based clinical review of literature pertaining to wound care with the use of fish xenografts was performed using several databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and resources provided by the South College library. Search terms and phrases such as, “tilapia AND fish skin,” “tilapia AND xenograft,” “wounds AND tilapia,” and “wound healing AND xenograft” were used as well as limits that included full text, humans, 10 years, and peer reviewed in order to locate potential articles for use. Final selection of articles was dependent on full text review, adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and agreement between two individual researchers. A quality assessment tool developed by National Heart Lung and Blood Institute was then utilized to exclude studies deemed “fair” or “poor” leaving only publications of “good” quality. Upon completion of good quality article selection, application of a data extraction tool allowed for the gathering of concise evidence included across studies for easy comparison. Results: Three randomized control studies were included in this review. All three articles were rated as “good” for internal validity. The studies included an age range of 18-70 year olds with a total population of 201 patients for all three studies combined. The combined studies suggest that the use of Nile Tilapia Fish Skin (NTFS) for wound care resulted in fewer days for reepithelization, fewer dressing changes, less pain for the patients, and decreased treatment related cost. Conclusion: NTFS seems to be a safe and cost-effective alternative to classic wound care, but current research is unable to fully endorse it as being preferred over current wound care materials. The results are promising for NTFS, but further research needs to be focused on larger populations and longer hospital stays, in order to assess the possibility of it as a first line treatment.