Current wound management through the use of a split-thickness skin graft often requires hospital admission, a period of immobility, attentive donor site wound care and pain management. This study evaluates the feasibility of using a novel epidermal graft-harvesting device (CelluTome) that allows pain-free epidermal skin grafting in the outpatient clinic setting. A prospective series of 35 patients was performed in 2 centres, involving 10 acute and 25 chronic wounds. All patients were subjected to epidermal grafting in the outpatient specialist clinic, without the use of anaesthesia, and allowed to return home after the procedure. Completely healed wounds were noted in 22 patients (62·9%). The overall mean time for 50% and 100% reduction in wound size was 3·31 ± 2·33 and 5·91 ± 3·48 weeks, respectively. There was no significant difference in healing times between the acute and chronic wounds (50% reduction in wound size; acute 2·20 ± 0·91 weeks versus chronic 3·73 ± 2·63 weeks, P = 0·171. Hundred percent reduction in wound size; acute 4·80 ± 1·61 weeks versus chronic 6·83 ± 4·47 weeks, P = 0·183). The mean time for donor site healing was 5·49 ± 1·48 days. The mean pain score during graft harvest was 1·42 ± 0·95, and the donor site Vancouver Scar Scale was 0 for all cases at 6 weeks. This automated device offers autologous skin harvesting in the outpatient setting with minimal or no pain and a scar free donor site, equally benefiting both the acute and chronic wounds. It has the potential to save NHS resources by eliminating the need for theatre space and a hospital bed while at the same time benefiting patient care.

Epidermal grafting for wound healing involves the transfer of the epidermis from a healthy location to cover a wound. The structural difference of the epidermal graft in comparison to the split-thickness skin graft and full-thickness skin graft contributes to the mechanism of effect. While skin grafting is an epidermal transfer, little is known about the precise mechanism of wound healing by epidermal graft. This paper aims to explore the evolution of the epidermal graft harvesting system over the last five decades, the structural advantages of epidermal graft for wound healing and the current hypotheses on the mechanism of wound healing by epidermal graft. Three mechanisms are proposed: keratinocyte activation, growth factor secretion and reepithelialisation from the wound edge. We evaluate and explain how these processes work and integrate to promote wound healing based on the current in vivo and in vitro evidence. We also review the ongoing clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of epidermal graft for wound healing. The epidermal graft is a promising alternative to the more invasive conventional surgical techniques as it is simple, less expensive and reduces the surgical burden for patients in need of wound coverage.

BackgroundSplit-thickness skin grafting (SSG) is an important modality for wound closure. However, the donor site becomes a second, often painful wound, which may take more time to heal than the graft site itself and holds the risk of infection and scarring. Epidermal grafting (EG) is an alternative method of autologous skin grafting that harvests only the epidermal layer of the skin by applying continuous negative pressure on the normal skin to raise blisters. This procedure has minimal donor site morbidity and is relatively pain-free, allowing autologous skin grafting in an outpatient setting. We plan to compare EG to SSG and to further investigate the cellular mechanism by which each technique achieves wound healing.Methods/designEPIGRAAFT is a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial that compares the efficacy and wound-healing mechanism of EG with SSG for wound healing. The primary outcome measures are the proportion of wounds healed in 6 weeks and the donor site healing time. The secondary outcome measures include the mean time for complete wound healing, pain score, patient satisfaction, health care utilisation, cost analysis, and incidence of adverse events.DiscussionThis study is expected to define the efficacy of EG and promote further understanding of the mechanism of wound healing by EG compared to SSG. The results of this study can be used to inform the current best practise for wound care.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT02535481. Registered on 11 August 2015.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1352-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conventional split skin grafts (SSG) require anaesthesia, specialist equipment and can have high donor site (DS) morbidity. The CelluTome epidermal graft-harvesting device is a novel alternative, providing pain-free epidermal skin grafts (ESG) in the outpatient setting, with projected minimal DS trauma and improved patient satisfaction. This study aimed to compare ESG with SSG by evaluating patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and the cost implications of both. Twenty patients answered a graft satisfaction questionnaire that evaluated: donor/graft site noticeability, aesthetic concerns, adverse problems and patient satisfaction. Cost/patient was calculated based on total operative expenses and five clinic follow-ups. In 100% of the ESG cases, there were no DS noticeability or adverse problems compared to 25% in the SSG group. Complete satisfaction with DS appearance was observed in 100% of the ESG cases (50% SSG). Noticeability, adverse problems and overall satisfaction were significantly better in ESG cases (P < 0.05). Graft site parameters were comparable with similar healing outcomes. The cost per patient for ESG was £431 and £1489 for SSG, with an annual saving of £126 960 based on 10 grafts/month. For the right patient, CelluTome provides comparable wound healing, with reduced DS morbidity and higher patient satisfaction.

Objectives: The inability to remove a ring from a finger is a common presentation to Emergency Departments in addition to Orthopaedic and Plastic Surgery Units. This is often complicated by factors including trauma and infection, leading to a superimposed tourniquet effect by the ring, strangulating the subcutaneous tissues. The threat of neurovascular compromise favours early removal of the ring to limit associated morbidity. This article illustrates the common methods within the literature. We offer assessing clinicians an illustrated summary of techniques for removing an incarcerated ring from an extremity and summarise notable considerations to be acknowledged at time of assessment and ring removal. Methods: A literature search using PubMed and Medline was performed to identify all articles written in English on ring removal. Results: The 12 publications included in this illustrated review describing techniques for removal of an incarcerated ring were published between 1991 and 2018 and include modifications to overcome difficulties due to the composition of the ring or severity of the ring incarceration and penile/scrotal ring removal. Conclusion: The ring removal techniques are ring preserving or destructive. The technique used depends on factors including the extent of associated trauma to the digit, evidence of strangulation, ring composition, patient preference and equipment availability. Before an attempt at ring removal, high arm elevation, indirect ice compression of the digit and adequate analgesia maximise chances of success. In cases of strangulation, emergent referral to a specialist is indicated for removal and further management.

Autologous skin grafting is an important method for wound coverage; however, it is an invasive procedure and can cause donor site morbidity. Epidermal grafting (EG) enables epidermal transfer to wounds with minimal donor site morbidity. However, data to date have been heterogeneous. This study aims to synthesise the current evidence on EG for wound healing to establish the efficacy of this surgical technique. A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases was conducted. The endpoints assessed were proportion of wounds healed and mean wound-healing time. This systematic review was conducted and reported according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. We identified 1568 articles, of which seven articles were included in this review - a total of 209 wounds in 190 patients. The mean wound duration was 17·06 weeks (95% CI 8·57-25·55). Of these, 71·5% (95% CI 56·7-84·2) of the wounds achieved complete healing. Mean time for complete wound healing was 5·53 weeks (95% CI 3·18-7·88). The mean donor site healing time was 7·48 days (95% CI 4·83-10·13), with no reported donor site morbidity. The current data are small and lack level 1 evidence.

No abstract

BackgroundAutologous skin grafting is an important modality for wound coverage; however, it can result in donor site morbidity. Epidermal grafting is an emerging option to overcome this challenge. Furthermore, it can be done in an outpatient setting with minimal or no pain. To date, the evidence on the efficacy of this technique for wound healing has yet to be outlined. We aim to synthesise the current evidence on epidermal grafting for wound healing to establish the efficacy of this technique.Methods/designWe will conduct a comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (up to May 2016) to identify studies on epidermal grafting for wound healing. We will include any primary studies (excluding case reports or case series lesser than three patients) or systematic reviews of such studies to assess the outcome of epidermal grafting for wound healing either on its own or compared to other methods. The expected primary outcome measures are the efficacy of epidermal grafting for wound healing (measured by the proportion of wounds healed at 6 weeks) and the mean wound-healing time (time for complete re-epithelialisation). Secondary outcome measures are the mean donor site-healing time, need for anaesthesia, costs associated with resource use, health-related quality of life, and proportion of patients with adverse event. Subgroup analysis will be performed for the proportions of wounds healed based on wound aetiology.DiscussionThis is a timely systematic review, and the finding of this systematic review is expected to guide research and clinical practice aimed at improving wound care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016033051Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0268-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.