Interesting that they try to spin this fibroblast finding as something positive. Fibroblasts are associated with scarring. Scarring leads to poor cosmetic and functional outcomes.
Anyone who has used both products knows that Integra scarring is much worse than BTM. BTM results in a supple regenerated dermis whereas Integra's product does not. This is particularly evident at tricky sites like the neck, armpit and over joints.
Next they focus on absorption. It's clinically insignificant. Big wounds will always require a VAC device to get rid of fluid. One could even argue that its advantageous for BTM to be more hydrophobic than the other products. It's probably part of the reason why you can milk out infection/pus deep to the BTM layer if it does get infected without having to redo the whole procedure. It's amazing. With biologics once you have infection it is mostly game over and it needs to be redone.
Lastly they focus on conformability which again is a non-issue clinically. BTM has been used in extremely tricky areas such as armpits and the neck and over joints such as the wrist. It's conformable enough. You can even layer it for more irregular deep wounds.
All in all, a bit of clincially rubbish document, which seems a bit desperate.
PNV easily wins on all of the big ticket items:
- Cost
- Infection risk
- Cosmetic outcomes
- Ease of use
I'm sure the PNV sales reps will know how to counter any future similar brochures. The clinicians have mostly already done that for them with the mountain of research that they have produced.
I am enjoying accumulating at these low prices.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
