Comparison of donor-site healing under Xeroform and Jelonet dressings: Unexpected findings

被引:39
作者
Malpass, KG
Snelling, CFT
Tron, V
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver Hosp & Hlth Sci Ctr, Div Plast Surg, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Edmonton, AB T6G 2M7, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.PRS.0000070408.33700.C7
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Split-thickness skin grafts remain central to the strategy of burn wound treatment. The dressing used to cover the donor wound site has a significant effect on healing parameters. The purpose of this study was to compare split-thickness skin graft donor site reepithelialization under Xeroform and Jelonet dressings. A dermatome was used to cut two consecutive strips of skin from 25 paired donor sites on the thigh, calf, or back of 19 participants. Standardization of the harvest method was achieved by using the same surgeon to harvest the compared skin graft strips, with attention to consistency of dermatome skin-thickness setting, downward pressure, and angle of dermatome approach. A strip of Xeroform or Jelonet was applied to one of each pair of wounds. Epidermal and dermal thickness was measured from biopsy specimens cut at the midpoint of each split-thickness graft strip. The day of final dressing separation was declared the day of complete donor reepithelialization (healing). The mean healing time for Xeroform and Jelonet was 10.4 +/- 2.6 days (n = 25) and 10.6 +/- 2.8 days (n = 25) (p = 0.76) at sites cut to a mean depth of 0.23 +/- 0.08 mm and 0.23 +/- 0.09 mm (p = 0.89), respectively. There was no correlation between graft thickness and healing time for sites dressed with Xeroform (r = 0.17) or Jelonet (r = 0.02). Donors sites reharvested 10 to 21 days after a prior harvest healed an average of 3.1 days earlier than virgin sites (8.4 +/- 1.6 versus 11.5 +/- 2.6 days, p < 0.001), although reharvested grafts were on average 0.05 mm thicker (p = 0.10). The mean thickness of reepithelialized donor-site epidermis (0.13 +/- 0.04 mm, n = 30) was found to be twice the thickness of virgin epidermis from the same sites (0.06 +/- 0.02 mm, n = 38, p < 0.001). Thirty-six grafts harvested with dermatomes set to cut 8/1000 inch (0.20 mm) deep ranged from 0.12 to 0.42 mm thick, with only eight of these grafts measuring within +/-10 percent of the desired thickness setting. Before donor dressing separation, Xeroform and Jelonet dressings were judged to be more comfortable by nine patients and one patient, respectively, whereas no difference was detected by six patients. The authors now use Xeroform as the preferred donor dressing.
引用
收藏
页码:430 / 439
页数:10
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1929, SURG GYNECOL OBSTET
[2]  
Berkowitz R L, 1981, Ann Plast Surg, V7, P126, DOI 10.1097/00000637-198108000-00008
[3]  
Brady S C, 1980, Ann Plast Surg, V5, P238, DOI 10.1097/00000637-198009000-00013
[4]   The healing of surface cutaneous wounds - Its analogy with the healing of superficial burns [J].
Converse, JM ;
Robb-Smith, AHT .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1944, 120 :873-885
[5]   LABEL-RETAINING CELLS RESIDE IN THE BULGE AREA OF PILOSEBACEOUS UNIT - IMPLICATIONS FOR FOLLICULAR STEM-CELLS, HAIR CYCLE, AND SKIN CARCINOGENESIS [J].
COTSARELIS, G ;
SUN, TT ;
LAVKER, RM .
CELL, 1990, 61 (07) :1329-1337
[6]  
FELDMAN DL, 1991, SURG GYNECOL OBSTET, V173, P1
[7]   DRESSING COMPARISON IN HEALING OF DONOR SITES [J].
GEMBERLING, RM ;
MILLER, TA ;
CAFFEE, H ;
ZAWACKI, BE .
JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 1976, 16 (10) :812-814
[8]   REACTIONS OF HEALING WOUNDS AND GRANULATION TISSUE IN MAN TO AUTO-THIERSCH, AUTODERMAL, AND HOMODERMAL GRAFTS - WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PHENOMENA ENCOUNTERED FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF GRAFTED TISSUE AND THE GENESIS OF SCARS, KELOIDS, SKIN CARCINOMATA, AND OTHER CUTANEOUS LESIONS [J].
GILLMAN, T ;
PENN, J ;
BRONKS, D ;
ROUX, M .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 1953, 6 (03) :153-223
[9]  
Griswold John A., 1995, Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, V16, P136, DOI 10.1097/00004630-199503000-00008
[10]  
Hickerson W. L., 1994, Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, V15, P359, DOI 10.1097/00004630-199407000-00012