Lukas Fabian Busch, Seyed Arash Alawi,
Volume 9, Issue 3 (9-2020)
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Grafting split-thickness (STSGs) and full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs) are common techniques to replace missing skin and to restore the skin barrier in burn, trauma and remaining skin defects after tumor resections. The defect coverage with skin grafts offer many advantages, but also disadvantages such as donor site morbidity like possible sensory disturbances, scarring, risk of infection, contour changes and pigment disorders. We aimed to assess the preferred distribution of donor site for STSGs and FTSGs in patient’s skin grafting for plastic-surgical defect coverage.
METHODS
Patients and their accompany persons referred to the Department of Plastic Surgery were interviewed for defect coverage with STSGs or FTSGs, the preference in donor site was investigated and the detailed advantages and disadvantages were clarified.
RESULTS
We evaluated 85 participants (male=43, female=42) with a median age of 42 years (mean=46 years). The definition of the donor site (n=188 markings) was mainly based on the physicians recommendation (32.98%), mobility (23.40%), aesthetic results (22.34%) and pain (21.28%). Feared complications (n=152) were mainly wound healing disorders (32.24%), circulation disorders (28.29%), scars (20.39%) and bleeding risks (19.08%). Among all participants, 79 split-skin graft preferences were specified, while 32% favored the scalp as a donor site, as well as 29% the frontal part of the left thigh and 10% the frontal part of the right thigh.
CONCLUSION
There were preferred anatomical donor sites for skin grafting. Nevertheless, in conscious patients, the donor site has to be selected in a consent talk and joint approval, preoperatively. The options of taking STSGs from the occipital region with all its advantages should be discussed intensively as it is an attractive graft donor site.
Mostafa Dahmardehei, Raheleh Moin Ara, Hossein Akbari Ahmadabadi,
Volume 12, Issue 3 (10-2023)
Abstract
Background: Skin graft involves removing a part of the skin and using it in another part of the body. One of the most common reasons for using a graft is burns. We aimed to compare the effect of Colactive plus Ag dressing with Vaseline gauze dressing in donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts of burned patients.
Methods: The present study was conducted as a randomized clinical trial (RCT) in the Motahari burn Hospital, Tehran, Iran in 1401. The sampling method was done using Cochran's formula and available patients so 15 people were enrolled. The findings of the study were collected using a researcher-made form.
Results: The average duration of recovery, the amount and intensity of pain, and the amount of itching between the two types of Colative plus Ag plus Ag dressing with Vaseline gauze are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. (P-value<0.05). In addition, the findings showed that the average amount of scar left by the wound in the two types of dressings examined is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (P-value > 0.05).
Conclusion: The use of Colactive silver dressing has less pain, less itching in the donor area, and a shorter average recovery time than Vaseline gauze. The use of the Colactive plus Ag will be more effective than Vaseline gauze.
