Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002 Aug;137(8):930-3; discussion 933-4.
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.137.8.930.

The vacuum assisted closure device: a method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival

Lynette A Scherer  1 , Stephen Shiver, Michael Chang, J Wayne Meredith, John T Owings
Affiliations

The vacuum assisted closure device: a method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival

Lynette A Scherer et al. Arch Surg. 2002 Aug.

Abstract

Hypothesis: Use of the vacuum assisted closure device (VAC) for securing split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) is associated with improved wound outcomes compared with bolster dressings.

Design: Consecutive case series.

Patients and setting: Consecutive patients at a level I trauma center requiring STSG due to traumatic or thermal tissue loss during an 18-month period.

Main outcome measure: Repeated skin grafting due to failure of the initial graft. Secondary outcome measures included dressing-associated complications, percentage of graft take, and length of hospital stay.

Results: Sixty-one patients underwent STSG placement. Indications for STSG were burn injury (n = 32), soft tissue loss (n = 27), and fasciotomy-site coverage (n = 2). Patients were treated with the VAC (n = 34) or the bolster dressing (n = 27). The VAC group required significantly fewer repeated STSGs (1 [3%] vs 5 [19%]; P =.04). Two additional graft failures occurred in the no-VAC group, but repeated STSGs were refused by these patients. No difference was seen between the groups in age, percentage of graft take, or hospital length of stay. The no-VAC group had significantly larger grafts (mean +/- SD, 984 +/- 996 vs 386 +/- 573 cm(2); P =.006). The patients requiring repeated STSGs (n = 6) did not have significantly larger grafts than those not requiring repeated STSGs (mean +/- SD, 617 +/- 717 vs 658 +/- 857 cm(2); P =.62). No dressing-associated complications occurred in the VAC group.

Conclusions: The VAC provides a safe and effective method for securing STSGs and is associated with improved graft survival as measured by a reduction in number of repeated STSGs.

PubMed Disclaimer