Split-thickness skin graft donor sites: a comparative study of two absorbent dressings.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the optimal dressing for split-thickness skin graft (SSG) donor sites. METHOD: This prospective randomised controlled trial compared two dressings - a new absorbent form of a polyurethane film dressing (Tegaderm Absorbent, 3M) and our standard alginate dressing (Kaltostat, ConvaTec) - on SSG donor sites in 40 patients. Primary outcome measures were: reduced time to full healing; reduced postoperative pain; reduced leakage rates from the dressing. Secondary outcome measures related to acceptability of the dressings to the patient. RESULTS: On removal of the dressings at the first assessment, 79% of the Tegaderm Absorbent donor sites had healed completely, compared with 16% of the Kaltostat ones (p<0.001).A significantly greater median area had healed with Tegaderm Absorbent (100%), when compared with Kaltostat (89%) (p<0.001). Mean time to complete healing was also significantly faster for Tegaderm Absorbent than Kaltostat (14 versus 21 days) (p<0.001). Significantly fewer subjects experienced postoperative pain with Tegaderm Absorbent on both day 1 (21% versus 67%, p=0.006, NNT=3) and day 2 (17% versus 75%, p<0.001, NNT=2). Leakage rates reduced by 48% with Tegaderm Absorbent, with no leakage in the smaller donor sites.Tegaderm Absorbent was significantly easier to apply than Kaltostat (89% versus 27% found it'very easy') as was ease of removal (84% versus 11% found it'very easy') (p<0.0001). Patients found Tegaderm Absorbent dressings significantly more convenient to manage and bathe with. At one month post-surgery, Vancouver scar scores showed thatTegaderm Absorbent donor sites were less red, flatter, softer and less itchy. CONCLUSION: Tegaderm Absorbent provides a significant improvement in terms of donor-site pain, healing and ease of management.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)433-438
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Wound Care
Volume16
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2007

Cite this