TY - JOUR
T1 - Lower donor site morbidity and higher patient satisfaction with epidermal grafting in comparison to split thickness skin grafting
T2 - A randomized controlled trial (EPIGRAAFT Trial)
AU - Kanapathy, Muholan
AU - Bystrzonowski, Nicola
AU - Hachach-Haram, Nadine
AU - Twyman, Lucy
AU - Becker, David L.
AU - Richards, Toby
AU - Mosahebi, Afshin
N1 - Funding Information:
University College London was the sponsor of the trial and received Educational Research Grant from Acelity (San Antonio, TX, USA). Acelity is the manufacturer of the CelluTome Epidermal Harvesting System. MK was supported by the IMPACT University College London PhD 2014-2017 Studentship. Acelity had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Funding Information:
The authors thank all nurses at the Plastics Dressings Clinic at the Royal Free Hospital London for their assistance in patient care throughout the duration of the trial. University College London was the sponsor of the trial and received Educational Research Grant from Acelity (San Antonio, TX, USA). Acelity is the manufacturer of the CelluTome Epidermal Harvesting System. MK was supported by the IMPACT University College London PhD 2014-2017 Studentship. Acelity had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2020/8
Y1 - 2020/8
N2 - Background: Split thickness skin grafting (SSG) is an important modality for wound coverage; however, it leads to donor site morbidity. Epidermal grafting (EG) is a promising option for autologous skin grafting which offers minimal donor site morbidity, though it is not known if EG is an effective clinical alternative for SSG. This study compared the efficacy of EG as an alternative to SSG in terms of wound healing outcomes, donor site morbidity, patient satisfaction and adverse events. Methods: EPIGRAAFT is a Phase 2, randomized, open-label trial with two parallel groups: EG and SSG. Patients referred for skin grafting with a healthy granulating wound bed were included. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of wounds healed and donor site healing time. The secondary endpoints include donor site morbidity measured using Vancouver Scar Scale, mean time for complete wound healing, patient satisfaction assessed using a validated skin grafting questionnaire and incidence of adverse events. Results: Of the 61 patients screened, 44 patients were randomized. There was no difference in the proportion of wounds healed at 6 weeks (p=0.366) and 3 months(p=0.24) as well as the mean time for wound healing (p=0.12). EG resulted in lower donor site morbidity (p=0.001), faster donor site healing time (EG: 4.86 days vs. SSG: 21.32 days) (p<0.0001), and higher overall satisfaction (p<0.001). There were no adverse events reported. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that EG has superior donor site outcomes with faster donor site healing and lower morbidity compared to SSG, while having comparable wound healing outcomes. Patients receiving EG also experienced higher donor site satisfaction compared to SSG. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02535481
AB - Background: Split thickness skin grafting (SSG) is an important modality for wound coverage; however, it leads to donor site morbidity. Epidermal grafting (EG) is a promising option for autologous skin grafting which offers minimal donor site morbidity, though it is not known if EG is an effective clinical alternative for SSG. This study compared the efficacy of EG as an alternative to SSG in terms of wound healing outcomes, donor site morbidity, patient satisfaction and adverse events. Methods: EPIGRAAFT is a Phase 2, randomized, open-label trial with two parallel groups: EG and SSG. Patients referred for skin grafting with a healthy granulating wound bed were included. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of wounds healed and donor site healing time. The secondary endpoints include donor site morbidity measured using Vancouver Scar Scale, mean time for complete wound healing, patient satisfaction assessed using a validated skin grafting questionnaire and incidence of adverse events. Results: Of the 61 patients screened, 44 patients were randomized. There was no difference in the proportion of wounds healed at 6 weeks (p=0.366) and 3 months(p=0.24) as well as the mean time for wound healing (p=0.12). EG resulted in lower donor site morbidity (p=0.001), faster donor site healing time (EG: 4.86 days vs. SSG: 21.32 days) (p<0.0001), and higher overall satisfaction (p<0.001). There were no adverse events reported. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that EG has superior donor site outcomes with faster donor site healing and lower morbidity compared to SSG, while having comparable wound healing outcomes. Patients receiving EG also experienced higher donor site satisfaction compared to SSG. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02535481
KW - Donor site morbidity
KW - Epidermal graft
KW - Skin graft
KW - Split thickness skin graft
KW - Wound healing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85086159026&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.03.006
DO - 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.03.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 32532631
AN - SCOPUS:85086159026
SN - 1748-6815
VL - 73
SP - 1556
EP - 1564
JO - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
JF - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
IS - 8
ER -