The Clinicians Speak, page-140

Thanks for that Kjc.

Funny, the poster gmutton pointed us to this report late last month on the PNV Media thread, sparking a week-long debate about the significance of an insignificantly higher “template infection”.

As you point out, what really is significant is BTM’s significantly lower skin graft failure and need for secondary surgery, compared with Integra.

BTM had higher "template infection" but SIGNIFICANTLY lower skin graft failure and need for secondary surgery (primary healing over the temple). People may latch on to template infection thing but that was just the term we used to describe a fluid collection under a portion of the template. Key point here is that this did not result in loss of the template (as you would see with a biologic).

Debate closed, I think!