In case some didn`t get past the abstract part of the paper the...

In case some didn`t get past the abstract part of the paper the Dicussion section deserves attention

DISCUSSION
Integra and other skin substitutes have been used recently to reconstruct large scalp avulsions with exposed calvarium deemed unsuitable for scalp replantation and flap reconstruction.1 Nonetheless, these products can be associated with high cost, antigenicity, and infection.6,7 A 2020 systematic review on Integra use revealed approximately 38% of studies reporting complications related to infection and concluded the risk of infection was a drawback of Integra use.7 Nonetheless, Integra has become the skin substitute of choice for many surgeons. The purpose of this report is not to discredit Integra but highlight an alternative skin substitute that also performs well for soft-tissue reconstruction. Although we have no way of knowing whether BTM would have become infected had it been placed first, it did perform well in the setting of recent infection. This finding is consistent with existing literature demonstrating effective closure of previously infected necrotizing fasciitis and IV drug-associated wounds with BTM.8,9 Additionally, BTM does not use biological materials in its composition, which significantly decreases its production cost.3,4 At our institution, BTM is roughly one-fifth the cost of Integra ($10.50 per cm2 for BTM and $47.78 per cm2 for Integra).

What better comparison

Cheers