Full-thickness skin graft versus split-thickness skin graft for radial forearm free flap donor site closure: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) serves as a workhorse for a variety of reconstructions. Although there are a variety of surgical techniques for donor site closure after RFFF raising, the most common techniques are closure using a split-thickness skin graft (STSG) or a full-thickness skin graft (FTSG). The closure can result in wound complications and function and aesthetic compromise of the forearm and hand. The aim of the planned systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the wound-related, function-related and aesthetics-related outcome associated with full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG) and split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) in radial forearm free flap (RFFF) donor site closure. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be followed. Electronic databases and platforms (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)) and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, the German Clinical Trials Register, the ISRCTN registry, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) will be searched using predefined search terms until 15 January 2024. A rerun of the search will be carried out within 12 months before publication of the review. Eligible studies should report on the occurrence of donor site complications after raising an RFFF and closure of the defect. Included closure techniques are techniques that use full-thickness skin grafts and split-thickness skin grafts. Excluded techniques for closure are primary wound closure without the use of skin graft. Outcomes are considered wound-, functional-, and aesthetics-related. Studies that will be included are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies. Case-control studies, studies without a control group, animal studies and cadaveric studies will be excluded. Screening will be performed in a blinded fashion by two reviewers per study. A third reviewer resolves discrepancies. The risk of bias in the original studies will be assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Data synthesis will be done using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Between-study variability will be assessed using the I2 index. If necessary, R will be used. The quality of evidence for outcomes will eventually be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Discussion This study's findings may help us understand both closure techniques' complication rates and may have important implications for developing future guidelines for RFFF donor site management. If available data is limited and several questions remain unanswered, additional comparative studies will be needed. Systematic review registration The protocol was developed in line with the PRISMA-P extension for protocols and was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 17 September 2023 (registration number CRD42023351903).

Electrospun Nanofiber Scaffold for Skin Tissue Engineering: A Review

“…Skin grafting remains a prevalent clinical intervention for addressing extensive skin defects, involving the use of autologous or allogeneic skin grafts to facilitate healing and regeneration of the affected skin area. 130,131 Nevertheless, autologous grafts face a scarcity of skin sources, while allogeneic grafts are susceptible to immune rejections, thereby limiting their clinical application. 131,132 Silk scaffolds produced through electrostatic spinning exhibit high porosity and excellent pore connectivity, which are favorable for sustaining blood flow and facilitating oxygen exchange in traumatic injuries.…”

“…Skin grafting remains a prevalent clinical intervention for addressing extensive skin defects, involving the use of autologous or allogeneic skin grafts to facilitate healing and regeneration of the affected skin area. , Nevertheless, autologous grafts face a scarcity of skin sources, while allogeneic grafts are susceptible to immune rejections, thereby limiting their clinical application. , Silk scaffolds produced through electrostatic spinning exhibit high porosity and excellent pore connectivity, which are favorable for sustaining blood flow and facilitating oxygen exchange in traumatic injuries. Additionally, they effectively hinder the loss of moisture and proteins from wounds. , Certain cell regulatory factors and living cells have been incorporated into scaffolds to facilitate cell growth, proliferation, and migration within them, thereby enhancing the rate of formation (Figure ).…”