TY - JOUR
T1 - The CelluTome epidermal graft-harvesting system
T2 - a patient-reported outcome measure and cost evaluation study
AU - Smith, Oliver J.
AU - Edmondson, Sarah Jayne
AU - Bystrzonowski, Nicki
AU - Hachach-Haram, Nadine
AU - Kanapathy, Muholan
AU - Richards, Toby
AU - Mosahebi, Ash
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2017/6
Y1 - 2017/6
N2 - Conventional split skin grafts (SSG) require anaesthesia, specialist equipment and can have high donor site (DS) morbidity. The CelluTome epidermal graft-harvesting device is a novel alternative, providing pain-free epidermal skin grafts (ESG) in the outpatient setting, with projected minimal DS trauma and improved patient satisfaction. This study aimed to compare ESG with SSG by evaluating patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and the cost implications of both. Twenty patients answered a graft satisfaction questionnaire that evaluated: donor/graft site noticeability, aesthetic concerns, adverse problems and patient satisfaction. Cost/patient was calculated based on total operative expenses and five clinic follow-ups. In 100% of the ESG cases, there were no DS noticeability or adverse problems compared to 25% in the SSG group. Complete satisfaction with DS appearance was observed in 100% of the ESG cases (50% SSG). Noticeability, adverse problems and overall satisfaction were significantly better in ESG cases (P < 0.05). Graft site parameters were comparable with similar healing outcomes. The cost per patient for ESG was £431 and £1489 for SSG, with an annual saving of £126 960 based on 10 grafts/month. For the right patient, CelluTome provides comparable wound healing, with reduced DS morbidity and higher patient satisfaction.
AB - Conventional split skin grafts (SSG) require anaesthesia, specialist equipment and can have high donor site (DS) morbidity. The CelluTome epidermal graft-harvesting device is a novel alternative, providing pain-free epidermal skin grafts (ESG) in the outpatient setting, with projected minimal DS trauma and improved patient satisfaction. This study aimed to compare ESG with SSG by evaluating patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and the cost implications of both. Twenty patients answered a graft satisfaction questionnaire that evaluated: donor/graft site noticeability, aesthetic concerns, adverse problems and patient satisfaction. Cost/patient was calculated based on total operative expenses and five clinic follow-ups. In 100% of the ESG cases, there were no DS noticeability or adverse problems compared to 25% in the SSG group. Complete satisfaction with DS appearance was observed in 100% of the ESG cases (50% SSG). Noticeability, adverse problems and overall satisfaction were significantly better in ESG cases (P < 0.05). Graft site parameters were comparable with similar healing outcomes. The cost per patient for ESG was £431 and £1489 for SSG, with an annual saving of £126 960 based on 10 grafts/month. For the right patient, CelluTome provides comparable wound healing, with reduced DS morbidity and higher patient satisfaction.
KW - CelluTome
KW - Cost analysis
KW - Epidermal skin grafting
KW - Patient-recorded outcome measures
KW - Split skin grafting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994476743&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/iwj.12644
DO - 10.1111/iwj.12644
M3 - Article
C2 - 27488934
AN - SCOPUS:84994476743
SN - 1742-4801
VL - 14
SP - 555
EP - 560
JO - International Wound Journal
JF - International Wound Journal
IS - 3
ER -