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
. 2014 Feb;11(1):85-92.
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01071.x. Epub 2012 Sep 3.

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

Muhammet Uraloğlu  1 , Murat Livaoğlu, Özgür Agdoğan, Sevdegül Mungan, Etem Alhan, Naci Karaçal
Affiliations

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

Muhammet Uraloğlu et al. Int Wound J. 2014 Feb.

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(®) .

Keywords: Dressing; Full-thickness cutaneous wounds; Split-thickness skin graft donor site.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sites for dressing were established. Split‐thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site and full‐thickness cutaneous wound (FTCW) extending to the cephalic area from the cranial on the right and the left.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Appearance on the third day after dressing.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Appearance on the tenth day.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cytoscan probe fixed by a mechanical device on the dorsal part of the animal.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Microporous polysaccharide hemosphere (MPH): Fibrosis in the papillary and deep dermis and mild chronic inflammation (Histochemistry, Trikrom ×100).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Clinoptilolite: Foreign body reaction in the dermis and phagocytosis of foreign body multinuclear giant cells [haematoxylin‐eosin (H&E) ×40].
Figure 7
Figure 7
Alginate: Minimal increase in fibroblastic activity can be seen (Histochemistry, Trikrom ×100).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Hydrogel: Complete surface re‐epithelialisation, fibrosis in the dermis and mild chronic inflammation [haematoxylin‐eosin (H&E) ×100].
Figure 9
Figure 9
Biobran®: Mild hyperkeratosis in the epidermis, rete elongation, increased fibrosis in the dermis and severe chronic inflammatory cell infiltration [Haematoxylin‐Eosin (H&E) ×100].
Figure 10
Figure 10
Comparison of the healing rates in the split‐thickness skin graft (STSG) donor areas. Traumadex® (microporous polysaccharide hemosphere, MPH); Froximun® (clinoptilolite); Kaltostat® (alginate); Elastogel® (hydrogel); Biobrane® (biosynthetic wound dressing). (*) Statistically significant results in the MPH, clinoptilolite and alginate groups on days 7 and 10.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Comparison of the healing rates in the full‐thickness cutaneous wound (FTCW) sites. Traumadex® (microporous polysaccharide hemosphere, MPH); Froximun® (clinoptilolite); Kaltostat® (alginate); Elastogel® (hydrogel); Biobrane® (biosynthetic wound dressing). (*) Significant results in the clinoptilolite and alginate groups on day 14.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Voineskos SH, Ayeni OA, McKnight L, Thoma A. Systematic review of skin graft donor‐site dressings. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:298–306. - PubMed
    1. Birdsell DC, Hein KS, Lindsay RL. The theoretically ideal donor site dressing. Ann Plast Surg 1979;2:535–7. - PubMed
    1. Kilinç H, Sensöz O, Ozdemir R, Unlü RE, Baran C. Which dressing for split‐thickness skin graft donor sites? Ann Plast Surg 2001;46:409–14. - PubMed
    1. Chaby G, Senet P, Vaneau M, Martel P, Guillaume JC, Meaume S, Téot L, Debure C, Dompmartin A, Bachelet H, Carsin H, Matz V, Richard JL, Rochet JM, Sales‐Aussias N, Zagnoli A, Denis C, Guillot B, Chosidow O. Dressings for acute and chronic wounds: a systematic review. Arch Dermatol 2007;143:1297–304. - PubMed
    1. Demirtas Y, Yagmur C, Soylemez F, Ozturk N, Demir A. Management of split‐thickness skin graft donor site: a prospective clinical trial for comparison of five different dressing materials. Burns 2010;36:999–1005. - PubMed