Polyurethane Versus Calcium Alginate Dressings for Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Site: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Herein, we compare the outcomes of polyurethane and calcium alginate dressings for split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with a search of electronic databases to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the outcomes of polyurethane dressing versus calcium alginate for STSG donor sites. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, convenience for staff and patients, and adverse effects (namely, excessive exudate, infection rate, and hematoma). Secondary outcome measures included the assessment of healing, dressing changes, cosmetic appearance, and cost. Fixed and random-effect models were used for the analysis. Four RCTs enrolling 127 subjects were identified. There was no significant difference between polyurethane and calcium alginate in terms of pain intensity on Day 1 (mean difference (MD) 0.13, P = 0.80) and Day 5 (MD = 0.20, P = 0.38), as well as the ease of application (odds ratio (OR) = 3.08, P = 0.47). However, there was a statistically significant improvement in patient comfort, favouring the polyurethane group (OR = 44.11, P < 0.00001). In addition, no statistically significant differences were noted in terms of adverse effects between the two dressings. In terms of cost, the calcium gluconate dressing had an overall higher cost compared to polyurethane. Polyurethane is a more favourable dressing compared to calcium alginate for STSG donor sites in terms of patient comfort, healing, and cosmetic outcomes. However, comparable results were noted in terms of pain intensity, ease of application, and adverse effects profile. Cost-effectiveness analysis studies are required to justify its routine use.