Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 7, 2025

Tissue Characterization after a New Disaggregation Method for Skin Micro-Grafts Generation
Published on: March 4, 2016
A comparative study of suction blister epidermal grafting and automated blister epidermal micrograft in stable
Pei-Rong Gao1,2, Chi-Hui Wang1,2,3, Yu-Jr Lin4
1Department of Dermatology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, No.5, Fushin Street, Taoyuan, Keelung Branch, Linkou, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract:
The automated blister epidermal micrograft (ABEM) is a newly introduced surgical transplantation for refractory vitiligo. Comparative analysis of other surgical methods is lacking. We conducted a retrospective study to compare the efficacy, safety, and experience of ABEM with conventional suction blister epidermal graft (SBEG). A total of 118 anatomically based vitiligo lesions from 75 patients were included. The primary outcome was the degree of repigmentation; the patient and operator experience were evaluated. SBEG had a significantly greater incidence of repigmentation (p < 0.001), as measured by the Physician Global Assessment, as well as improvements in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index, particularly on the face/neck area (p < 0.001). ABEM, on the contrary, had reduced donor harvest time, a better patient operative experience, and more significant Dermatology Life Quality Index improvements. In a subgroup of 38 lesions from ten patients who received both SBEG and ABEM concomitantly, there was no difference in the degree of repigmentation in the same recipient area. Overall, the degree of repigmentation for SBEG is higher than ABEM, especially in the mobilized region, and the cost is less expensive. On the contrary, ABEM requires less procedure learning curve and can supply a greater transplanting zone with shorter donor site recovery. Understanding the benefits and drawbacks of two blister grafting procedures is essential for optimal surgical outcomes for vitiligo grafting.

