UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to compare Biatain Ag and Biatain Alginate Ag (both Coloplast, Denmark) as skin graft donor site dressings.
UNASSIGNED: A single-centre, prospective, randomised clinical study was conducted. In patients who had undergone a skin graft operation, adjacent split-thickness skin graft donor sites were dressed with Biatain Ag and Biatain Alginate Ag, respectively. The primary outcomes were time to re-epithelialisation and pain score after the operation. The secondary outcomes were scar scores of the donor site after the operation, haematoma rates, infection rates, and exudation rates before wound healing. Results were compared using the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-squared test.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 16 paired wounds in 16 patients were studied. The donor sites dressed with Biatain Ag needed more time for >90% re-epithelialisation than those dressed with Biatain Alginate Ag. On day 3 postoperatively, the pain scores with Biatain Ag were significantly less severe than those with Biatain Alginate Ag. On days 6, 9 and 12, the pain scores of both dressings did not differ significantly. The scar scores of the donor site dressed with Biatain Ag were significantly worse than those dressed with Biatain Alginate Ag at 6 months. With respect to infection rates, no significant differences were detected between these two groups. However, the exudation rates of the donor site dressed with Biatain Ag were significantly lower than those dressed with Biatain Alginate Ag.
UNASSIGNED: As skin graft donor site dressings, both Biatain Ag and Biatain Alginate Ag have advantages.

(1) Introduction: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is an inflammatory skin disease with recurrent, chronic, painful, and purulent skin lesions. Topical or systemic antibiotics are the most widely used treatments for the management of mild stages of the disease. In chronic cases (Hurley II/III), wide excision of lesions should be considered. During reconstructive surgery, the most problematic aspect is wound closure. Very large excisional wounds require reconstructive techniques such as skin flaps, skin grafts, or both. Surgical methods have their limitations, so reconstructive methods in HS surgery need to be continuously improved through the use of, for example, platelet-rich plasma and acellular dermal matrix; (2) Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and efficacy of surgical treatment of patients with HS using local skin flaps injected with PRP compared to a group of local skin flaps without platelet-rich plasma injection, an acellular dermal matrix, and split-thickness skin graft co-grafts. Sixty-one patients (29 males and 32 females) were included in the study. Most patients were characterized by Hurley grade III HS; (3) Results: The use of PRP injection in reconstructions (skin flaps) improved healing and reduced the number of complications, a notable trend in this study. A co-graft of acellular dermal matrix and split-thickness skin graft gave better therapeutic results than split-thickness skin graft alone (fewer days in hospital, fewer postoperative complications); (4) Conclusions: PRP injected into skin flaps, co-grafted acellular dermal matrix, and split-thickness skin grafts are good options for the surgical treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa.

Background A wide array of diseases can lead to skin defects of the male genitalia. Although reconstructive options have been debated in the literature, no study has compared the effectiveness of a meshed split-thickness skin graft (STSG) and a sheet STSG in perineal and scrotal wound coverage. In this study, we report our experience in a tertiary trauma center. Methodology In this retrospective study, we included cases with a skin defect of the male genitalia, for which genital reconstruction with a skin graft was performed at our hospital from December 2017 to February 2020. This study was approved by the institutional review board. The analysis was performed at 95% confidence interval using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results A total of 27 patients were included in the study. The most common indication for genital reconstruction was Fournier\'s gangrene (59.3%). In 15 (55.6%) patients, a meshed skin graft was utilized to cover the defect, whereas a sheet graft was utilized in 12 (44.4%) patients. Out of the 15 patients who underwent genital reconstruction with a meshed graft, 10 (66.6%) had complete graft take. On the other hand, out of the 12 (44.4%) patients who underwent genital reconstruction using a sheet graft, five (41.6%) had complete graft take. A statistically significant relationship was found between aesthetic and functional outcomes and the type of skin graft used. The satisfaction rate was higher among meshed skin graft recipients (86.2%) compared to sheet skin graft recipients (41.7%) (p = 0.014). Conclusions Based on our observational experience, we found that meshed STSG to cover male genital skin defects is safe with satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. Further prospective randomized studies are needed.

Background: Split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) remain a valuable tool in the reconstructive surgeons\' armamentarium. Staple or suture mechanical fixation (MF) serves as the gold standard of care, though fibrin glue (FG) has gained popularity as a fixation modality. We compare STSG outcomes following application of FG versus MF through a study of lower extremity wounds. Methods: A retrospective review (2016-2019) of patients who underwent a STSG was performed. Two cohorts consisting of patients undergoing a STSG with FG or MF (suture or staple) were matched according to wound size, wound location, and body mass index. Results: A total of 67 patients with 79 wounds were included (FG: n = 30, wounds = 39; MF: n = 37; wounds = 40). There was no significant difference between groups regarding time to 100% graft take (FG: 39 days, MF: 35.1 days; P < .384) or 180-day graft complications (FG: 10.3%, MF: 15%; P < .737). Adjusted operative time for FG (51.8 min) was lower than for MF cases (67.5 min) at a level that approached significance (P < .094). FG patients were significantly less likely to require a postoperative wound vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) (FG: 16.7%; MF: 76.7%; P < .001) and required a significantly lower number of 30-day postoperative visits (FG: 1.5 ± .78 visits; MF: 2.5 ± .03 visits; P < .001). The MF group had higher mean aggregate charges ($211,090) compared with the FG group (mean: $149,907), although these were not statistically significant (P > .05). Conclusion: The use of FG for STSG shows comparable clinical outcomes to MF, with a significantly decreased need for postoperative wound VAC, the number of 30-day postoperative visits, and a lower wound-adjusted operative time.

BACKGROUND: Wound repair is one of the most complex biological processes of human life. Allogeneic cell-based engineered skin substitutes provide off-the-shelf temporary wound coverage and act as biologically active dressings, releasing growth factors, cytokines and extracellular matrix components essential for proper wound healing. However, they are susceptible to immune rejection and this is their major weakness. Thanks to their low immunogenicity and high effectiveness in regeneration, fetal skin cells represent an attractive alternative to the commonly used autologous and allogeneic skin grafts.
METHODS: We developed a new dressing comprising a collagen matrix seeded with a specific ratio of active fetal fibroblasts and keratinocytes. These produce a variety of healing growth factors and cytokines which will increase the speed of wound healing and induce an immunotolerant state, with a slight inflammatory reaction and a reduction in pain. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that the use of this biological dressing for wound healing at the split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site, reduces the time to healing, decreases other co-morbidities, such as pain, and improves the appearance of the scar. This investigation will be conducted as part of a randomized study comparing our new biological dressing with a conventional treatment in a single patient, thus avoiding the factors that may influence the healing of a graft donor site.
CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial should enable the development of a new strategy for STSG donor-wound healing based on a regenerative dressing. The pain experienced in the first few days of STSG healing is well known due to the exposure of sensory nerve endings. Reducing this pain will also reduce analgesic drug intake and the duration of sick leave. Our biological dressing will meet the essential need of surgeons to \"re-crop\" from existing donor sites, e.g., for thermal-burn patients. By accelerating healing, improving the appearance of the scar and reducing pain, we hope to improve the conditions of treatment for skin grafts.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03334656 . Registered on 7 November 2017.

BACKGROUND: This is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children\'s Burn centre (PLCBC), the largest paediatric burns centre in Queensland, Australia. Our objective was to find the best performing dressing, following on from previous trials designed to rationalise dressings for the burn wound itself.
METHODS: All children for STSG, with thigh donor sites, were considered for enrolment in the trial. Primary outcome measures were days to re-epithelialisation, and pain. Secondary measures were cost, itch, and scarring at 3 and 6 months. Patients and parents were blinded to group assignment. Blinding of assessors was possible with the dressing in situ, with partial blinding following first dressing change. Blinded photographic assessments of re-epithelialisation were used. Scar assessment was blinded. Covariates for analysis were sex, age, and graft thickness (as measured from a central biopsy).
RESULTS: There were 101 patients randomised to the Algisite™ M (33), Cuticerin™ (32), and Sorbact® (36) arms between April 2015 and July 2016. All were analysed for time to re-epithelialisation. Pain scores were not available for all time points in all patients. There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding pain, or time to re-epithelialisation. There were no significant differences for the secondary outcomes of itch, scarring, or cost. Regression analyses demonstrated faster re-epithelialisation in younger patients and decreased donor site scarring at 3 and 6 months with thinner STSG. There were no adverse effects noted.
CONCLUSIONS: There are no data supporting a preference for one trial dressing over the others, in donor site wounds (DSW) in children. Thinner skin grafts lead to less donor site scarring in children. Younger patients have faster donor site wound healing.
BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000380695).Royal Children\'s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QRCH/36).University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (#2014000447).

Donor site aesthetic outcomes of epidermal graft (EG) vs split-thickness skin graft (SSG) have yet to be objectively compared. Here, we evaluate donor site healing using a validated scar assessment tool and digital colorimetric technique, which compares colour in a consistent and objective manner. Ten patients (SSG (n = 5) and EG (n = 5)) were included. Donor site scarring was evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) at Week 6 and Month 3. Colorimetric measurement was performed at Weeks 3 and 6 and Month 3. The mean donor site healing time for EG was significantly shorter (EG: 4.6 days (95% c.i. 3.8-5.3), SSG: 16.8 days (95% c.i. 13.3-20.1) (P = 0.003)). The VSS scores of the EG donor site were lower at Week 6 and Month 3(P < 0.001). The colour match between the donor site and surrounding skin for EG was better compared with SSG at all time points and was almost identical to their surrounding healthy skin at Month 3. This study is the first to objectively measure the clinical appearance of the EG donor site against SSG. EG donor site has faster healing with excellent scarring and good colour match with its surrounding normal skin at all time points compared with SSG.

OBJECTIVE: Split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site dressings can play an integral role in reducing donor site morbidity. This study tested a novel, chitosan-based wound dressing, Opticell Ag, as an STSG donor site dressing for wounds <10% total body surface area (TBSA).
METHODS: Between January and December 2016, the chitosan-based dressing was placed on participating patients\' donor sites immediately following graft harvest and covered with a transparent occlusive dressing. Pain was evaluated on postoperative day one, before dressing change between days 5-7, and before and after dressing removal between days 10-14 using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The extent of re-epithelialisation was determined between day 10-14 and at one month, and healing quality was also evaluated at one month post-operatively using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS).
RESULTS: A total of 19 patients were recruited, of which 16 completed the study. Patients experienced mild-to-moderate pain in their donor sites when the chitosan-based dressing was used. Pain decreased significantly between postoperative day one and days 10-14, as well as between days 5-7 and 10-14. The mean percentage of re-epithelialisation on days 10-14 was 92% and by one month was 99%. The mean VSS at one month was 3.2±1.4. There were no statistically significant differences between patients\' re-epithelialisation rates or VSS scores. There were unplanned dressing changes in four patients. No donor site infections or other adverse events were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: The chitosan-based dressing tested in this study is safe, effective, and associated with reasonable pain control and acceptable healing quality. The results suggest that it is a promising STSG donor site dressing.

OBJECTIVE: Split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) taken using calibrated powered dermatomes are assumed to yield a graft of uniform thickness, though this assumption has never been analysed statistically. This study aims to test that assumption in a paediatric population.
METHODS: STSGs from a consecutive cohort of paediatric patients were analysed for mean thickness, measured from a central biopsy. All STSGs were taken from the thigh at a dialled thickness of 0.007in. Data were analysed using non-parametric methods.
RESULTS: There were 140 STSGs taken from 91 children. The median thickness was 6.94 thousandths of an inch, with a spread of thicknesses about this median (IQR 5.05-9.28). There were no significant differences when results were analysed by surgeon, patient age or gender, swipe number within the case, or the number of previous passes with the same blade.
CONCLUSIONS: STSG thickness is inconsistent, with a broad spread about a median value. This study provides no data to suggest there are pre-operative predictors of STSG thickness being significantly more or less than that dialled on a powered dermatome.

To identify the most appropriate, most suitable and most efficient dressing for split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites. Comparing the wound healing rate, pain severity and duration, as well as the dressing change frequency in four randomised patient groups.
A single-centre non-blinded randomised controlled trial was carried out during 2010-2014. All patients treated for skin defects/lesions (due to burns, trauma or ulcers) using STSG were included in the study. All patients were randomly allocated in four different donor site treatment groups; polyurethane (PU group, Mepilex); polyurethane with silicone membrane (PUSM group; Mepilex border,); transparent, breathable film (TBF group; Mepitel film) and cotton gauze dressings (CG group) using Excel 2007. We evaluated: wound healing time, pain severity and duration, the frequency of dressing change, donor site re-epithelialisation, donor site complications (signs of inflammation or infection). Patients were assessed on postoperative days: 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 21.
After random allocation of study participants the number of patients in each group were: PU group n=25; PUSM group n=24; TBF group n=24; CG group n=25. The groups were homogenous according to gender, age, main pathology, donor site area and wound size. The STSG donor site healing time varied from 9 to 21 days. The mean healing time in the CG group was 14.76 days, whereas in the PU, PUSM, and TBF group it was significantly shorter; 12.25 days, 11.63 days and 10 days, respectively. Patients in the TBF group demonstrated the most rapid healing time with 66.7% of STSG donor sites healed by postoperative day 9. The pain duration interval in modern dressing groups (PU, PUSM and TBF groups) was 0-9 days, whereas it was 6-18 day in the CS group. Pain intensity mean on postoperative day 1 was 2.21 in the PU group; 1.67 in the PUSM group; 1.46 in the TBF group and 3.04 in the CG group. The average pain duration in Group PU, PUSM, and TBF was 4.08 days; 2.5 days; 2.29 days, respectively. The average number of times each dressing was changed in each group was, 2.83 times in the PU group and PUSM group and 1.46 times in the TBF group. The CG dressing group were changed once when the donor site wound re-epithelialised. There was one patient in the PU group who experienced signs of infection, was treated accordingly and excluded from the study.
The fastest healing time was demonstrated by patients in the TBF group. The pain was not as severe and for a shorter period of time in modern dressing study groups. However, the pain was lightest and felt shortest in TBF dressing group. The modern dressings PU and PUSM had to be changed more frequently than TBF.