We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Split-thickness skin graft donor sites: a comparative study of two absorbent dressings.
Journal of Wound Care 2007 November
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app