The clinical outcomes of xenografts in the treatment of burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Although autografts are not feasible in patients with extensive burn wounds, allografts and xenografts can be used for temporary coverage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of xenografts and the standard treatment of burn wounds. METHODS: International online databases were searched for English articles comparing xenografts with routine treatment in the burn patients. The random-effects model was used to estimate standardized mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: From a total of 7144 records, 14 studies were included in our review after screening by title and abstracts followed by full-texts. No significant difference in hospital stays was found between the mammalian xenografts and control groups (SMD [95% CI] = − 0.18 [− 0.54–0.18]). The mean number of dressing changes was significantly lower in both mammalian xenografts compared to the controls (SMD [95% CI] = − 1.01 [− 1.61–− 0.41]) and fish xenografts compared to controls (SMD [95% CI] = − 6.16 [− 7.65–− 4.66]). In the fish xenografts, re-epithelialization time was significantly lower compared to controls (SMD [95% CI] = − 1.18 [− 2.23–− 0.14]). CONCLUSIONS: Xenografts showed a significantly lower number of dressing changes and fish xenografts showed significant benefit in re-epithelialization compared to routine treatment. The beneficial results of xenografts suggest further research in the use of different types of xenografts in patients with extensive burn. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40001-023-01505-9.