Supporting Literature

The clinical efficacy of TheraSkin® is supported by numerous peer-reviewed and published articles in its intended field of use. 

Retrospective Publications

A retrospective matched-cohort study of 3994 lower extremity wounds of multiple etiologies across 644 institutions comparing a bioactive human skin allograft, TheraSkin, plus standard of care, to standard of care alone. Gurtner GC, Garcia AD, Bakewell K, Alarcon JB. Int Wound J. 2020;17(1):55-64. doi:10.1111/iwj.13231.

Matched-cohort study comparing bioactive human split-thickness skin allograft plus standard of care to standard of care alone in the treatment of diabetic ulcers: A retrospective analysis across 470 institutions [published correction appears in Wound Repair Regen. Barbul A, Gurtner GC, Gordon H, Bakewell K, Carter MJ. 2020 May;28(3):431]. Wound Repair Regen. 2020;28(1):81-89. doi:10.1111/wrr.12767.

A retrospective clinical study of 188 consecutive patients to examine the effectiveness of a biologically active cryopreserved human skin allograft (TheraSkin®) on the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. Landsman AS, Cook J, Cook E, et al.  Foot Ankle Spec. 2011;4(1):29-41.

Treatment of Deep Full-thickness Wounds Containing Exposed Muscle, Tendon, and/or Bone Using a Bioactive Human Skin Allograft: A Large Cohort Case Series. Flood MS, Weeks B, Anaeme KO, et al. Wounds. 2020;32(6):164-173.

The Economic Impact of Living Cell Tissue Products in Treating Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Venous Leg Ulcers in Patients with Commercial Insurance: A Retrospective Matched-Cohort Study. Barbul A, Gelly H, Obradovic K, Landsman A.Adv Skin Wound Care. 2023;36(5):243-248. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000922704.17906.26.

Prospective Studies

The Use of Cryopreserved Human Skin Allograft for the Treatment of Wounds With Exposed Muscle, Tendon, and Bone. Wilson TC, Wilson JA, Crim B, Lowery NJ. Wounds. 2016;28(4):119-125.

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

Multi-centre prospective randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate a bioactive split thickness skin allograft vs standard of care in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers [published correction appears in Int Wound J. 2022 Aug;19(5):1276]. Armstrong DG, Galiano RD, Orgill DP, et al. Int Wound J. 2022;19(4):932-944.

Randomized, Prospective, Blinded-Enrollment, Head-To-Head Venous Leg Ulcer Healing Trial Comparing Living, Bioengineered Skin Graft Substitute (Apligraf) with Living, Cryopreserved, Human Skin Allograft (TheraSkin). Towler MA, Rush EW, Richardson MK, Williams CL. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2018;35(3):357-365. doi:10.1016/j.cpm.2018.02.006.

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing a bioengineered skin substitute to a human skin allograft. Sanders L, Landsman AS, Landsman A, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(9):26-38.

A prospective comparison of diabetic foot ulcers treated with either a cryopreserved skin allograft or a bioengineered skin substitute. DiDomenico L, Landsman AR, Emch KJ, Landsman A. Wounds. 2011;23(7):184-189.

Pre-Clinical Studies

Cryopreserved human skin allografts promote angiogenesis and dermal regeneration in a murine model. Henn D, Chen K, Maan ZN, et al. Int Wound J. 2020;17(4):925-936. doi:10.1111/iwj.13349.

Characterization of a Cryopreserved Split-Thickness Human Skin Allograft-TheraSkin. Landsman A, Rosines E, Houck A, et al.  Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016;29(9):399-406. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000489991.32684.9e