Australasian Survey of Split Skin Graft Donor Site Dressings

Lyall, Patrick; Sinclair, S.

doi:10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01767.x

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although national surveys revealed that Kaltostat is the most commonly used dressing in the United Kingdom and Australia, 3,16 clinical data favor other dressing types in terms of wound healing, cost, patient comfort, and ease of use. 17,28–30 We and others 13,30 found Aquacel and Kaltostat to be expensive and relatively difficult to use, as these dressings required frequent reinforcement, thus precluding their routine use for split-thickness skin graft donor sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Review of the literature has shown that impregnated fine-mesh gauze, calcium alginate, and polyurethane film are among the most commonly used dressings; however, newer materials such as hydrofibers, hydrocolloids, and foams are becoming more popular for use on split-thickness donor sites. 3,8,15,16 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,15,16 This is due, in part, to an overabundance of choices and a lack of consistent clinical evidence to support alternative materials. 3,12,15,16 To date, 4 systematic reviews on the most effective donor-site dressings have been completed. 7,10,17,18 These reviews were based mainly on small trials comparing a limited number of dressing types.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Six Split-thickness Skin Graft Donor-site Dressing Materials in a Swine Model

Masella

Balent

Carlson

et al. 2013

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Numerous dressings for split-thickness skin graft donor sites are commercially available with no conclusive evidence-based consensus regarding the optimal dressing choice. This study was conducted to identify which of 5 commonly used materials promotes wound healing most effectively for use on split-thickness donor sites in comparison with our standard dressing, Xeroform (petrolatum gauze).Methods:Twenty-four partial-thickness wounds were created on the backs of 4 pigs using a dermatome. Wounds (n = 4 per dressing type per pig) were treated with Xeroform, Opsite (polyurethane film), Kaltostat ( calcium sodium alginate), DuoDERM (hydrocolloid), Aquacel (hydrofiber), and Mepilex (silicone foam). Full-thickness skin samples were excised at 3 or 5 days and evaluated histologically for reepithelialization and inflammation. Comparisons also included incidence of infection, ease of use, and cost analyses.Results:DuoDERM elicited the greatest percent reepithelialization (81%) and Mepilex the lowest (33%) after 3 days (P = 0.004). All dressings demonstrated complete reepithelialization except Mepilex (85%) at 5 days. There were no infections and inflammation was mild among all treatments. Mepilex was easiest to use, whereas Aquacel, Kaltostat, and Opsite were most difficult (P = 0.03). Xeroform was most cost-effective and Aquacel most expensive. Combined scoring revealed DuoDERM = Xeroform > Opsite = Mepilex > Kaltostat > Aquacel.Conclusions:DuoDERM and Xeroform were most effective overall. DuoDERM tended to outperform all dressings in reepithelialization at 3 days, while Xeroform was least expensive, easy to use, and demonstrated rapid reepithelialization. These findings suggest that Xeroform may be preferred for use on large donor-site areas. DuoDERM may be more appropriate for small donor sites when healing time is a priority.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Six Split-thickness Skin Graft Donor-site Dressing Materials in a Swine Model

Masella

Balent

Carlson

et al. 2013

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Acute wound pain has been shown to impact patient stress and, subsequently, has a negative effect on quality of life and results in delayed wound healing . In recognition of this, a pain‐free dressing is a consistently desirable quality of a wound dressing in both adult and paediatric populations …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evidence‐based review of split‐thickness skin graft donor site dressings

Brown

Holloway

2018

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This evidence-based review aimed to identify and evaluate current existing evidence relating to the efficacy of dressing materials for spit-thickness skin graft donor site wounds in relation to promoting rapid healing and reducing patient pain. A comprehensive systematic search of the literature between 2006 and 2016 identified 35 publications that were included in the review. Based on the results of the review, it was found that moist wound-healing products have a clear advantage over non-moist products in the reduction of pain and increased healing rates. This review concluded that moist wound-healing products are more effective than non-moist wound-healing products in reducing pain and promoting healing in split-thickness skin graft donor site wounds. A recommendation based on this review is that further research examine the role of secondary dressing usage in donor site wound management, and the consideration of using more than one primary dressing product during the donor site wound-healing process should be undertaken.

show abstract

“…Consequently, large variation exists among health care professionals regarding their choice for wound dressing materials or topical agents to treat DSWs [8-10]. Based on national surveys, alginates appear to be the most commonly used primary dressing [8-10], probably due to their additional haemostatic properties [11,12]. They are followed by films, hydrofibers, silicone dressings and paraffin gauzes [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which dressing do donor site wounds need?: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Brölmann

Gerbens

Ubbink

et al. 2011

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDonor site wounds after split-skin grafting are rather 'standard' wounds. At present, lots of dressings and topical agents for donor site wounds are commercially available. This causes large variation in the local care of these wounds, while the optimum 'standard' dressing for local wound care is unclear. This protocol describes a trial in which we investigate the effectiveness of various treatment options for these donor site wounds.MethodsA 14-center, six-armed randomized clinical trial is being carried out in the Netherlands. An a-priori power analysis and an anticipated dropout rate of 15% indicates that 50 patients per group are necessary, totaling 300 patients, to be able to detect a 25% quicker mean time to complete wound healing. Randomization has been computerized to ensure allocation concealment. Adult patients who need a split-skin grafting operation for any reason, leaving a donor site wound of at least 10 cm2 are included and receive one of the following dressings: hydrocolloid, alginate, film, hydrofiber, silicone dressing, or paraffin gauze. No combinations of products from other intervention groups in this trial are allowed. Optimum application and changes of these dressings are pursued according to the protocol as supplied by the dressing manufacturers. Primary outcomes are days to complete wound healing and pain (using a Visual Analogue Scale). Secondary outcomes are adverse effects, scarring, patient satisfaction, and costs. Outcome assessors unaware of the treatment allocation will assess whether or not an outcome has occurred. Results will be analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. The first patient was randomized October 1, 2009.DiscussionThis study will provide comprehensive data on the effectiveness of different treatment options for donor site wounds. The dressing(s) that will prevail in effectiveness, satisfaction and costs will be promoted among clinicians dealing with such patients. Thus, we aim to contribute a well-designed trial, relevant to all clinicians involved in the care for donor site wounds, which will help enhance uniformity and quality of care for these patients.Trial registrationhttp://www.trialregister.nl, NTR1849. Date registered: June 9, 2009

show abstract

Australasian Survey of Split Skin Graft Donor Site Dressings

Abstract: Most of the respondents were satisfied with their preferred dressing and were not interested in trying alternative dressings.

Cited by 32 publications

References 12 publications

Evaluation of Six Split-thickness Skin Graft Donor-site Dressing Materials in a Swine Model

Evaluation of Six Split-thickness Skin Graft Donor-site Dressing Materials in a Swine Model

An evidence‐based review of split‐thickness skin graft donor site dressings

Which dressing do donor site wounds need?: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About