Split-thickness skin graft donor site management. A randomized prospective trial comparing a hydrophilic XXXX absorbent foam dressing with a petrolatum gauze dressing.

@entity1 @entity2133 @entity281 @entity158 @entity2636
OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, skin graft donor sites have been covered with fine-mesh gauze dressings, and a @entity2133 has been allowed to form. Newer dressings that can provide a moist wound environment may facilitate reepithelialization. We compared a hydrophilic semipermeable absorbent @entity2636 foam dressing that provides a moist wound environment with a petrolatum gauze dressing for donor sites. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial; follow-up at 14 days. SETTING: Department of head and neck surgery in a tertiary care center. @entity1 : Sixty-eight eligible @entity1 received one of the two dressings. Harvested skin grafts were 0.375-mm (0.015-in) thick; donor site surface areas were recorded. At postoperative day 14, the dressings were removed, and wound epithelialization was scored: 1, none; 2, scattered or spotty; and 3, complete. Donor site and operative site @entity158 intensities were assessed by a visual numeric scale: none (0) to the worst (100) experienced over the preceding 24-hour period. @entity158 scores were available for 58 @entity1 . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dressings were compared based on these criteria: healing at 14 days, @entity281 , and donor site and operative site @entity158 . RESULTS: A healing score of 3 was seen in 37% (14/38) of @entity1 with hydrophilic semipermeable absorbent @entity2636 foam dressings and in 17% (5/30) of @entity1 with petrolatum gauze dressings (P = .06) by day 14. Overall, however, mean healing scores were similar in both groups. Mean healing scores for the @entity1 who received a hydrophilic semipermeable absorbent @entity2636 foam dressing was 2.3 (SD = 0.6) vs 2.2 (SD = 0.6) for @entity1 who received the petrolatum gauze dressing (P = .20). Numbers of days required for complete epithelialization in these groups were 20.6 (SD = 10.1) and 19.3 (SD = 5.1), respectively (P = .49). One @entity281 occurred in the group who received the petrolatum gauze dressing. The mean maximum @entity158 intensity scores were lower for those who were given the hydrophilic semipermeable absorbent @entity2636 foam dressing on postoperative days 1 through 3 (P = .003, .03, and .04, respectively). @entity158 increased with a larger donor site surface area for the @entity1 with the petrolatum gauze dressing but not for the @entity1 with the hydrophilic semipermeable absorbent @entity2636 foam dressing. CONCLUSIONS: The hydrophilic semipermeable absorbent @entity2636 foam dressing appears to have potential advantages over the petrolatum gauze dressing; it produces less initial @entity1 donor site discomfort and tends to produce more complete donor site healing by postoperative day 14.
