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
. 2009 Jul;124(1):298-306.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a8072f.

Systematic review of skin graft donor-site dressings

Sophocles H Voineskos  1 , Olubimpe A Ayeni, Leslie McKnight, Achilleas Thoma
Affiliations

Systematic review of skin graft donor-site dressings

Sophocles H Voineskos et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Debate continues about what split-thickness skin graft donor-site dressing provides the best outcomes for patients at the lowest cost. The goal of this systematic review was to determine which donor-site dressings are associated with the best outcomes for the following: pain, infection rate, healing quality, healing rate, quality of life, and cost.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review and assessment was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Articles were selected using specific inclusion criteria. Split-thickness skin graft donor-site dressings were classified as either moist or nonmoist based on the state of the dressing upon initial application. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Jadad scale.

Results: Seventy-five relevant articles were included in the final analysis, three of which were review articles. The most commonly measured outcome was healing rate (64 of 72), followed by pain (58 of 72), infection rate (40 of 72), healing quality (40 of 72), and cost (15 of 72). No studies measured quality of life. The majority of articles were randomized controlled trials (35 of 75), followed by observational studies (22 of 75), unsystematic clinical observations (15 of 75), and review articles (three of 75). It was difficult to compare moist and nonmoist dressings in this review because of the methodological heterogeneity of the included articles. The available evidence suggests, however, that moist dressings are superior in terms of pain.

Conclusions: Some weak evidence exists that supports "wet dressings." To determine the best split-thickness skin graft donor-site dressing, more methodologically sound randomized controlled trials are needed. Trials with parallel economic evaluations should be undertaken to answer this question.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Feldman DL, Rogers A, Karpinski RH. A prospective trial comparing Biobrane, Duoderm and xeroform for skin graft donor sites. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;173:1–5.
    1. Rakel BA, Bermel MA, Abbott LI, et al. Split-thickness skin graft donor site care: A quantitative synthesis of the research. Appl Nurs Res. 1998;11:174–182.
    1. Wiechula R. The use of moist wound-healing dressings in the management of split-thickness skin graft donor sites: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Pract. 2003;9:S9–S17.
    1. Thoma A, Strumas N, Rockwell G, McKnight L. The use of cost-effectiveness analysis in plastic surgery clinical research. Clin Plast Surg. 2008;35:285–296.
    1. Ousterhout DK, Tumbusch WT, Margetis PM, Leonard F. The treatment of split thickness skin graft donor sites using n-butyl and n-heptyl 2-cyanoacrylate. Br J Plast Surg. 1971;24:23–30.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources