An evaluation of five different dressing materials on split‐thickness skin graft donor site and full‐thickness cutaneous wounds: an experimental study

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the healing effect of five different products on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites and full-thickness cutaneous wounds (FTCWs) using an occlusive dressing model. Six groups were included: 1 control and 5 experimental groups, with a total of 24 rats, using an occlusive dressing model. STSG donor sites and FTCWs were established in two separate areas, to the right and left on the animals' backs. Wound sites were dressed with one of the following materials: fine mesh gauze, microporous polysaccharide hemosphere (MPH), clinoptilolite, alginate, hydrogel or biosynthetic wound dressing (Biobran(®) ). These materials were compared in terms of healing rate, healing quality and histopathological findings. Occlusive dressings were applied to each wound on days 0, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 14. Area measurements were taken using images of each dressing. The alginate and clinoptilolite groups gave the best healing rate results for both STSG donor sites (P = 0·003) and FTCWs (P = 0·003). MPH came third in each group. The alginate group produced better results in terms of healing quality criteria, followed by hydrogel, MPH, clinoptilolite and Biobran(®) , in that order. Statistically significant results were obtained in all groups compared to the control group (P < 0·0007). Rapid and good healing quality for both the STSG donor sites and FTCWs were obtained with alginate. Healing with clinoptilolite and MPH was rapid, but poor quality, while slower but good healing quality was obtained with hydrogel. Slower and worse quality healing was obtained with Biobran(®) .

Comparison of Three Different Methods of Dressing for Skin Graft Donor Site

“…Dressing adhesion to skin graft donor site, VAS score, and duration of dressing are presented in Table 2. The mean duration of hospitalization in group A was 17.96±1.4 days (range: 15-21 days), group B, 16.43±1.86 days (range: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], and group C, 16.9±1.55 days (range: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. This figure was significantly higher in group A compared with group B and C (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between groups B and C (P=0.6).…”

“…Dressing is an acceptable method to protect the wound and reduce the healing duration, pain, infection, and cost [2,16]. Various studies reported that several dressings are appropriate for this aim, including classical gauzes, modern silicone dressing, alginates, and hydrofibers [17].…”

The effect of low molecular weight heparin on salvaging the zone of stasis in an experimental burn model

“…OPS imaging is a technique based on the optical filtration of polarized light absorbed by hemoglobin (41). This method permits direct in vivo real-time imaging of the capillary network and visualization of the microcirculation in tissues including burned skin (42) and provides qualitative and quantitative information about perfusion because the capillaries are easily visible and red blood cells can be tracked in real time (43,44). This imaging technique has been validated for the measurement of different microcirculatory parameters, in particular FCD, as a parameter of dermal perfusion.…”

Nonmicrosurgical options for soft tissue reconstruction of the hand

“…A silk sericin-releasing bioactive dressing [2] for the treatment of proximal thigh STSG donor sites, when compared with a paraffin and chlorhexidine impregnated cotton dressing, was found to be less adherent to the wound, reached full healing 2 days earlier (12 days vs 14 days), and reduced pain in the first 4 postoperative days. Five different dressing materials on STSG donor site healing [3] were examined in an animal model. Fine mesh gauze, microporous polysaccharide hemosphere, clinoptilolite, alginate, hydrogel, and biosynthetic wound dressing (Biobran) were examined for healing rate and quality.…”