"The BTM group had a lower complication rate compared with the...

"The BTM group had a lower complication rate compared with the CCS (33%, n = 6 vs 55.6%, n = 5, P = .0018). In the BTM group, 2 patients required return to the operating room (OR) for repeat debridement, 1 patient required replacement of the BTM template, and 1 required additional reconstruction with a local flap. In the CCS group, 3 patients required return to the OR with replacement of CCS. Ultimately, 2 of these patients were reconstructive failures and required revision amputation at the level of distal interphalangeal joint (DIP) in one and local flap closure in the other."

This and other studies are consistently showing the increased proportion of patients avoiding amputation using BTM over other methods of closure.
It seems a no-brainer as a standard of care for complex dermal loss cases.

I would think that it is very bad luck for the CCS study participants in this case. Evidence showing starkly better outcomes should prompt a review of the ethical question of using a proven inferior product and method of full thickness dermal closures from this point.

I know what I would expect if I were a patient in this position...