Autografting with split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) remains an essential procedure in burn and reconstructive surgery. The process of harvesting STSG, however, leaves behind a donor site, an exposed area of partial-thickness dermis left to heal by secondary intention. There has yet to be a consensus amongst surgeons regarding optimal management of the donor site. The ideal donor site dressing is one that allows for expeditious healing while minimizing pain and infection. Despite numerous studies demonstrating the superiority of moist wound healing, many surgeons continue to treat STSG donor sites dry, with petroleum-based gauze. In this study, two burn centers performed a retrospective review of burn patients whose STSG donor sites were treated with either Xeroform® or Mepilex® Ag dressings. Infections were documented and in a subgroup analysis of patients, postoperative pain scores were noted and total opiate usage during hospitalization was calculated. Analysis revealed an overall infection rate of 1.2% in the Mepilex® Ag group and 11.4% in the Xeroform® group (p<0.0001). Patients with Xeroform® donor site dressings had increased odds of donor site infection (OR=10.8, p=0.002). In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in maximum pain scores between Mepilex® Ag and Xeroform® groups, nor were there differences in opiate usage. STSG donor sites dressed with silver foam dressings have a lower rate of donor site infection relative to those dressed with petroleum-based gauze. Moist donor site dressings such as foam dressings (including Mepilex® Ag) should be the standard of care in STSG donor site wound care.
La greffes de peau mince (GPM) demeure une procédure essentielle dans la chirurgie de brûlure et de reconstruction. La zone donneuse de greffe (ZDG) représente une perte de substance cutanée superficielle, cicatrisant spontanément. Il n’y a pas de consensus concernant la prise en charge optimale de la ZDG. Le pansement idéal de la ZDG doit promouvoir la cicatrisation et réduire la douleur ainsi que le risque infectieux. Malgré les nombreuses publications montrant l’intérêt d’un environnement humide pour la cicatrisation, de nombreux chirurgiens réalisent des pansements secs vaselinés. Cette étude rétrospective effectuée dans 2 CTB compare les pansements de ZDG réalisés au Xéroform® ou au Mepilex Ag®. Les infections ont été documentées et, dans un sous-groupe, les scores de douleur et la consommation d’opiacés au long de l’hospitalisation ont été notés. Les taux d’infection sont de 1,2% dans le groupe Mepilex Ag® et 11,4% avec Xéroform® (p<0,0001). Le risque d’infection de la ZDG est augmenté (OR 10,8 ; p = 0,002) en cas d’utilisation de Xéroform®. Il n’y avait pas de différence de douleur et de consommation d’opiacés entre les 2 groupes. Les ZDG recouvertes d’un pansement hydrocellulaire imprégné d’argent s’infectent moins que celles traitées avec une gaze imprégnée de vaseline. L’utilisation sur les ZDG d’un pansement humide comme une mousse hydrocellulaire (par exemple Mepilex Ag®) devrait devenir la norme.

BACKGROUND: Donor site wound management is critical in split-thickness skin graft surgeries. These sites typically recover in 7-14 days due to the dermal-imbedded keratinocytes that promote skin regeneration. An ideal donor site dressing can help to mitigate pain, reduce infection risk, promote hemostasis, and accelerate healing times. Additionally, this dressing would be easy to apply in the operating room, easily managed, and cost-effective. Chitosan-based gelling dressings (CBGD) possess many of these qualities that make an ideal donor site dressing.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received CBGD as part of their post-operative wound care plan. We collected data on infections, hemostasis, dressing failure, and hospital course over a 14-month period where CBGD was used as the donor site dressing.
RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients were evaluated. We found an infection rate of 7%, a bleed-through rate of 1.8%, and a re-application rate of 9.6%. The average CBGD cost per patient was $75.15.
CONCLUSIONS: CBGD has acceptable infection rates, and pain scores as traditional donor site dressings. However, it possesses several qualities of a suitable donor site dressing notably swift healing rates, impressive hemostatic property, and low cost. Our study supports the idea that CBGD is a suitable donor site dressing for split-thickness skin graft surgeries.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a povidone-iodine (PVP-I) foam dressing (Betafoam) for donor site dressing versus a hydrocellular foam dressing (Allevyn) and petrolatum gauze. This prospective Phase 4 study was conducted between March 2016 and April 2017 at eight sites in Korea. A total of 106 consenting patients (aged ≥ 19 years, scheduled for split-thickness skin graft) were randomised 1:1:1 to PVP-I foam, hydrocellular, or petrolatum gauze dressings for up to 28 days after donor site collection. We assessed time to complete epithelialisation, proportion with complete epithelialisation at Day 14, and wound infection. Epithelialisation time was the shortest with PVP-I foam dressing (12.74 ± 3.51 days) versus hydrocellular foam dressing (16.61 ± 4.45 days; P = 0.0003) and petrolatum gauze (15.06 ± 4.26 days, P = 0.0205). At Day 14, 83.87% of PVP-I foam dressing donor sites had complete epithelialisation, versus 36.36% of hydrocellular foam dressing donor sites (P = 0.0001) and 55.88% of petrolatum gauze donor sites (P = 0.0146). There were no wound infections. Incidence rates of adverse events were comparable across groups (P = 0.1940). PVP-I foam dressing required less time to complete epithelialisation and had a good safety profile.