Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of split thickness skin graft versus full thickness skin graft for radial forearm flap donor site closure: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The radial forearm flap (RFF) is one of the most commonly used flaps in reconstructive surgery. Split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) has traditionally been used for closure of the forearm. However, full-thickness skin grafting (FTSG) has gained in popularity to achieve more satisfactory results. The aim of the study is to identify the best RFF donor site closure technique by comparing the functional and aesthetic outcomes of STSG and FTSG.

METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE databases were queried. Only studies comparing complications rate, functional and aesthetic outcomes between STSG and FTSG were included. The primary outcome was graft failure rate. Secondary outcomes included the aesthetic result and functionality of the forearm/wrist.

RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included in this review, accounting for a total of 712 patients with mean age of 60.7 years. Overall, 348 patients underwent FTSG and 377 underwent STSG. The mean follow-up was 14.7 months. The rate of graft failure in FTSG was significantly higher compared to STSG (OR: 2.79, 95 % CI 1.38-5.65, p = 0.004). There was no significant difference in rate of tendon exposure (OR: 0.83, p = 0.65) and infection (OR: 1.37, p = 0.42). Regarding the aesthetic outcome, no significant difference between FTSG and STSG based on observer (SMD = -0.37, p = 0.17) and patient (SMD = -0.016, p = 0.93) assessment, respectively. Overall postoperative functional assessment showed a not severely impaired hand and arm function in both groups. Subjective evaluation of pain was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION: FTSG is associated with higher risk of graft failure than STSG in RFF donor site closure, without significant improvement in aesthetic results.

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