1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A prospective dual-centre intra-individual controlled study for the treatment of burns comparing dermis graft with split-thickness skin auto-graft

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To investigate if donor and recipient site morbidity (healing time and cosmesis) could be reduced by a novel, modified split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) technique using a dermal component in the STSG procedure (DG). The STSG technique has been used for 150 years in surgery with limited improvements. Its drawbacks are well known and relate to donor site morbidity and recipient site cosmetic shortcomings (especially mesh patterns, wound contracture, and scarring). The Dermal graft technique (DG) has emerged as an interesting alternative, which reduces donor site morbidity, increases graft yield, and has the potential to avoid the mesh procedure in the STSG procedure due to its elastic properties. A prospective, dual-centre, intra-individual controlled comparison study. Twenty-one patients received both an unmeshed dermis graft and a regular 1:1.5 meshed STSG. Aesthetic and scar assessments were done using The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and a Cutometer Dual MPA 580 on both donor and recipient sites. These were also examined histologically for remodelling and scar formation. Dermal graft donor sites and the STSG donor sites healed in 8 and 14 days, respectively ( p < 0.005). Patient-reported POSAS showed better values for colour for all three measurements, i.e., 3, 6, and 12 months, and the observers rated both vascularity and pigmentation better on these occasions ( p < 0.01). At the recipient site, (n = 21) the mesh patterns were avoided as the DG covered the donor site due to its elastic properties and rendered the meshing procedure unnecessary. Scar formation was seen at the dermal donor and recipient sites after 6 months as in the standard scar healing process. The dermis graft technique, besides potentially rendering a larger graft yield, reduced donor site morbidity, as it healed faster than the standard STSG. Due to its elastic properties, the DG procedure eliminated the meshing requirement (when compared to a 1:1.5 meshed STSG). This promising outcome presented for the DG technique needs to be further explored, especially regarding the elasticity of the dermal graft and its ability to reduce mesh patterns.

          Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT05189743) 12/01/2022.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Demonstration of the safety and effectiveness of the RECELL® System combined with split-thickness meshed autografts for the reduction of donor skin to treat mixed-depth burn injuries

          Split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) are the standard of care (SOC) for burns undergoing autografting but are associated with donor skin site morbidity and limited by the availability of uninjured skin. The RECELL® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device (RECELL® System, or RECELL) was developed for point-of-care preparation and application of a suspension of non-cultured, disaggregated, autologous skin cells, using 1cm2 of the patient's skin to treat up to 80cm2 of excised burn.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Grafts in dermatologic surgery: review and update on full- and split-thickness skin grafts, free cartilage grafts, and composite grafts.

            Skin grafting has evolved in the past centuries to encompass numerous well-established reconstruction techniques that are uniquely able to restore structure, function, and cosmesis to a variety of surgical wounds. To provide a detailed overview of the general principles of skin grafting geared for the dermatologist and the dermatologic surgeon. Comprehensive review of the literature. A summary of the different applications and techniques of full- and split-thickness skin grafts, free cartilage grafts, and composite grafts is presented. Indications, advantages, disadvantages, techniques, and complications are discussed in depth. Skin grafting is a dynamic and versatile method of cutaneous reconstruction that can be accomplished successfully with a thorough understanding of the principles and techniques of grafting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Split-thickness skin graft donor-site morbidity: A systematic literature review.

              The purpose of this systematic literature review is to critically evaluate split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor-site morbidities. The search of peer-reviewed articles in three databases from January 2009 to July 2019 identified 4271 English-language publications reporting STSG donor-site clinical outcomes, complications, or quality of life. Of these studies, 77 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Mean time to donor-site epithelialization ranged from 4.7 to 35.0 days. Mean pain scores (0-10 scale) ranged from 1.24 to 6.38 on postoperative Day 3. Mean scar scores (0-13 scale) ranged from 0 to 10.9 at Year 1. One study reported 28% of patients had donor-site scar hypertrophy at 8 years. Infection rates were generally low but ranged from 0 to 56%. Less frequently reported outcomes included pruritus, wound exudation, and esthetic dissatisfaction. Donor-site wounds underwent days of wound care and were frequently associated with pain and scarring. Widespread variations were noted in STSG donor-site outcomes likely due to inconsistencies in the definition of outcomes and utilization of various assessment tools. Understanding the true burden of donor sites may drive innovative treatments that would reduce the use of STSGs and address the associated morbidities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Sinan.dogan@regionostergotland.se
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                15 December 2022
                15 December 2022
                2022
                : 12
                : 21666
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5640.7, ISNI 0000 0001 2162 9922, Department of Hand Surgery, Plastic Surgery and Burns in Linköping, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, , Linköping University, ; Linköping, Sweden
                [2 ]GRID grid.7737.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0410 2071, Department of Plastic Surgery, Helsinki Burn Centre, , Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, ; Helsinki, Finland
                [3 ]GRID grid.7737.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0410 2071, Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Helsinki, ; Helsinki, Finland
                [4 ]GRID grid.5640.7, ISNI 0000 0001 2162 9922, Department of Clinical Pathology, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, , Linköping University, ; Linköping, Sweden
                [5 ]GRID grid.411384.b, ISNI 0000 0000 9309 6304, Linköping University Hospital, ; 58185 Linköping, Sweden
                Article
                25346
                10.1038/s41598-022-25346-4
                9755129
                36522434
                85efaa5f-3580-43b9-bc7a-763237a40416
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 May 2022
                : 29 November 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Linköping University
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Uncategorized
                clinical trials,randomized controlled trials
                Uncategorized
                clinical trials, randomized controlled trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article