Cargando…

Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Skin grafting is the single most effective method to close a chronic wound. The current standard of care is to use meshed split thickness skin grafts. This entails the use of surgical instruments that need to be autoclaved and to have a power source, which usually requires an OR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanches‐Pinto, Débora C., Eriksson, Elof, Gomez, David S., Nunes, Maria P. T., Gemperli, Rolf, Soriano, Francisco G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10285033/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37359407
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1353
_version_ 1785061522005819392
author Sanches‐Pinto, Débora C.
Eriksson, Elof
Gomez, David S.
Nunes, Maria P. T.
Gemperli, Rolf
Soriano, Francisco G.
author_facet Sanches‐Pinto, Débora C.
Eriksson, Elof
Gomez, David S.
Nunes, Maria P. T.
Gemperli, Rolf
Soriano, Francisco G.
author_sort Sanches‐Pinto, Débora C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Skin grafting is the single most effective method to close a chronic wound. The current standard of care is to use meshed split thickness skin grafts. This entails the use of surgical instruments that need to be autoclaved and to have a power source, which usually requires an OR facility. The minced skin technique uses single use, presterilized instruments and the procedure can be done under local anesthesia, by a wound care practitioner, in a wound clinic, a physician's office or even at the bedside. The current study was designed to determine if the results from micrografting were non inferior to conventional mesh grafting. METHODS: In a prospective non inferiority study, 26 chronic ulcers were treated with micrografting (MSG) and 24 with conventional mesh grafts 1:3 (control group‐CG) in a total of 21 patients, 10 male and 11 female. The donor site areas in the MSG group were predetermined to 2.5 × 5 cm and the mesh grafts expansion was set at 1:3. RESULTS: In the first weeks postoperatively, micrograft healing initially lagged behind the conventional mesh grafts but at 60 days after grafting, all MSG wounds were healed. The MSG wounds had better pigmentation, less itching, and less scarring. The micrografting procedure was easy to learn and expeditious to perform. The MSG mean expansion was 9.1 compared to three times (CG). CONCLUSION: The MSG procedure is not inferior to conventional mesh grafting, requires smaller donor sites, and can be done with single use instruments, under local anesthesia, with early discharge.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10285033
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102850332023-06-23 Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts Sanches‐Pinto, Débora C. Eriksson, Elof Gomez, David S. Nunes, Maria P. T. Gemperli, Rolf Soriano, Francisco G. Health Sci Rep Original Research BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Skin grafting is the single most effective method to close a chronic wound. The current standard of care is to use meshed split thickness skin grafts. This entails the use of surgical instruments that need to be autoclaved and to have a power source, which usually requires an OR facility. The minced skin technique uses single use, presterilized instruments and the procedure can be done under local anesthesia, by a wound care practitioner, in a wound clinic, a physician's office or even at the bedside. The current study was designed to determine if the results from micrografting were non inferior to conventional mesh grafting. METHODS: In a prospective non inferiority study, 26 chronic ulcers were treated with micrografting (MSG) and 24 with conventional mesh grafts 1:3 (control group‐CG) in a total of 21 patients, 10 male and 11 female. The donor site areas in the MSG group were predetermined to 2.5 × 5 cm and the mesh grafts expansion was set at 1:3. RESULTS: In the first weeks postoperatively, micrograft healing initially lagged behind the conventional mesh grafts but at 60 days after grafting, all MSG wounds were healed. The MSG wounds had better pigmentation, less itching, and less scarring. The micrografting procedure was easy to learn and expeditious to perform. The MSG mean expansion was 9.1 compared to three times (CG). CONCLUSION: The MSG procedure is not inferior to conventional mesh grafting, requires smaller donor sites, and can be done with single use instruments, under local anesthesia, with early discharge. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10285033/ /pubmed/37359407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1353 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Sanches‐Pinto, Débora C.
Eriksson, Elof
Gomez, David S.
Nunes, Maria P. T.
Gemperli, Rolf
Soriano, Francisco G.
Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts
title Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts
title_full Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts
title_fullStr Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts
title_full_unstemmed Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts
title_short Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts
title_sort minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10285033/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37359407
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1353
work_keys_str_mv AT sanchespintodeborac mincedskingraftsforchronicwoundscomparedtoconventionalmeshgrafts
AT erikssonelof mincedskingraftsforchronicwoundscomparedtoconventionalmeshgrafts
AT gomezdavids mincedskingraftsforchronicwoundscomparedtoconventionalmeshgrafts
AT nunesmariapt mincedskingraftsforchronicwoundscomparedtoconventionalmeshgrafts
AT gemperlirolf mincedskingraftsforchronicwoundscomparedtoconventionalmeshgrafts
AT sorianofranciscog mincedskingraftsforchronicwoundscomparedtoconventionalmeshgrafts