Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing two methods of securing skin grafts using negative pressure wound therapy: vacuum-assisted closure and gauze suction.

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has revolutionized the management of complicated wounds and has contributed an additional modality for securing split thickness skin grafts (STSG). The standard for NPWT is the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) device. The authors' institution has accumulated experience using standard gauze sealed with an occlusive dressing and wall suction (GSUC) as their primary mode for NPWT. The authors report a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of the GSUC vs the VAC in securing STSG. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 157 wounds in 104 patients requiring STSG from August 2009 to July 2012. All wounds were randomized to VAC or GSUC treatment and assessed for skin graft adherence/take. At postoperative day 4 or 5, NPWT was discontinued, and the size of the graft and any nonadherent areas were measured and recorded. Concomitant comorbidities, wound location, etiology, study failures, and reoperative rates were also reviewed. In all, 77 and 80 wounds were randomized to the GSUC and VAC study arms. Patient demographics were similar between both groups in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, etiology, and wound location. In all, 64 of 80 wounds in the GSUC group and 60 of 77 wounds in the VAC group had full take of the skin graft by postoperative day 4 or 5 (P = .80). The mean percent take in the GSUC group was 96.12% vs 96.21% in the VAC arm (P = .98). The use of NPWT in securing STSG is a useful method to promote adherence and healing. This study demonstrates that a low-cost, readily accessible system utilizing gauze dressings and wall suction (GSUC) results in comparable skin graft take in comparison to the VAC device.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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