In clinical settings, split-thickness skin graft (STSG) remain the gold standard for covering large skin defects. However, STSGs usually bring complications to the donor sites. The study objective was to compare the efficacy of thick split-thickness skin graft versus thin split-thickness skin graft in the reconstruction of the donor site.
All patients were randomly divided into two groups. For the patients in the thick STSG group, the surgeons harvested thick STSGs which were larger than recipient sites. The extra skin was punctured and stretched to cover the donor site (the novel technique). For the patients in the thin STSG group, the surgeons harvested thick STSGs of the size of recipient sites. Their donor sites were covered with thin STSGs which were harvested from other parts of the patients. The 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) scores, pain scores, pruritus scores, scar scores and rates of complications were compared between the two groups.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
40
For all the patients, thick STSGs (at a depth of 0.7 mm) were harvested from the upper lateral thighs to repair skin defects at functional sites or joint sites. For patients in the thick STSG group, the surgeons harvested a larger size of thick STSGs than the size of recipient sites. The size of the donor site was 150% - 200% of the size of the recipient site. Part of the thick STSG was grafted onto the recipient site. Subsequently, the leftover skin was punctured (in 1.5:1 mesh ratio) and stretched to obtain expansion. The donor site was covered by the leftover skin completely. In other words, the donor site was reconstructed by resurfacing the large sheet of thick STSG in situ. For patients in the thin STSG group, the surgeons harvested thick STSGs of the size of recipient sites. Their donor sites were covered with a large sheet of thin STSGs (at a depth of 0.4 mm) which were harvested from other parts of the patients.
Nanjing First Hospital
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
RECRUITINGhealing time of the donor sites
The complete healing time of the donor sites was defined as the day when 100% epithelialization was achieved,
Time frame: 2 months post surgery
life quality (36-item short form health survey scores)
The life quality of patients was evaluated by the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) scores (including General Health scores, Mental Health scores, Social Function scores, and Vitality scores). The minimum value is 0. The maximum value is 100. The higher score means a better outcome.
Time frame: Prior to surgery or at 6 months post-surgery
pains scores (Visual Analogue Scales)
The degrees of pain at the donor sites were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scales. Patients were asked to score levels of pain (0 = no pain, 5 = worst pain) using Visual Analogue Scales. The higher score means a worse outcome.
Time frame: on Day 1 and Day 7 postoperatively
pruritus scores
The degrees of pruritus at the donor sites were measured by scores (1 = never or occasional itches, 2 = itches do not disturb sleep, 3= itches disturb sleep). The higher score means a worse outcome.
Time frame: at 3 months and at 6 months post-surgery
scars scores ( Vancouver Scar Scales )
The scar formation at the donor sites were evaluated with the Vancouver Scar Scales (from 0 to 15, 0 = best and 15 = worst) in terms of pigmentation, vascularity, pliability and height. The higher score means a worse outcome.
Time frame: at 3 months and 6 months post-surgery
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.