ArticleScientific reports2022
A prospective dual-centre intra-individual controlled study for the treatment of burns comparing dermis graft with split-thickness skin auto-graft.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05189743 (A Prospective Multi-centre Randomised Study for Treatment of Burns With Dermis Graft or Split-thickness Skin Auto-graft.), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Prospective Multi-centre Randomised Study for Treatment of Burns With Dermis Graft or Split-thickness Skin Auto-graft.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate if donor and recipient site morbidity (healing time and cosmesis) could be reduced by a novel, modified split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) technique using a dermal component in the STSG procedure (DG). The STSG technique has been used for 150 years in surgery with limited improvements. Its drawbacks are well known and relate to donor site morbidity and recipient site cosmetic shortcomings (especially mesh patterns, wound contracture, and scarring). The Dermal graft technique (DG) has emerged as an interesting alternative, which reduces donor site morbidity, increases graft yield, and has the potential to avoid the mesh procedure in the STSG procedure due to its elastic properties. A prospective, dual-centre, intra-individual controlled comparison study. Twenty-one patients received both an unmeshed dermis graft and a regular 1:1.5 meshed STSG. Aesthetic and scar assessments were done using The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and a Cutometer Dual MPA 580 on both donor and recipient sites. These were also examined histologically for remodelling and scar formation. Dermal graft donor sites and the STSG donor sites healed in 8 and 14 days, respectively (p < 0.005). Patient-reported POSAS showed better values for colour for all three measurements, i.e., 3, 6, and 12 months, and the observers rated both vascularity and pigmentation better on these occasions (p < 0.01). At the recipient site, (n = 21) the mesh patterns were avoided as the DG covered the donor site due to its elastic properties and rendered the meshing procedure unnecessary. Scar formation was seen at the dermal donor and recipient sites after 6 months as in the standard scar healing process. The dermis graft technique, besides potentially rendering a larger graft yield, reduced donor site morbidity, as it healed faster than the standard STSG. Due to its elastic properties, the DG procedure eliminated the meshing requirement (when compared to a 1:1.5 meshed STSG). This promising outcome presented for the DG technique needs to be further explored, especially regarding the elasticity of the dermal graft and its ability to reduce mesh patterns.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT05189743) 12/01/2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.