ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of Split-Thickness Skin Graft Fixation and Uptake Using Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Conventional Methods.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma Combined with Split-Thickness Skin Grafts for Skin Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSplit-thickness skin grafting is a cornerstone in reconstructive surgery for managing skin defects. However, graft failure remains a significant challenge. This study evaluated the effectiveness of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in enhancing split-thickness skin graft (STSG) fixation and uptake compared to conventional methods.
methodsThis prospective comparative study included 104 patients requiring STSGs, randomly allocated into two equal groups (n=52 (50%) each). The PRP group received autologous PRP application at the recipient site before graft placement, while the control group underwent conventional fixation with staples/sutures. Outcomes were assessed based on immediate postoperative adhesion, graft uptake percentage, and complications (edema and hematoma) at days 3, 5, and 7 postoperatively.
resultsThe groups were comparable in terms of demographic characteristics and wound parameters. Immediate postoperative adhesion was observed in 36 (69.2%) patients in the PRP group versus none in the control group (p<0.001). The PRP group demonstrated significantly higher graft uptake on day 3 (96.07±5.7% versus 86.33±6.06%, p<0.001) and day 5 (92.7±8.4% versus 79.9±9.1%, p<0.001), with sustained difference on day 7 (90.8±10.5% versus 75.62±11.2%, p=0.07). The PRP group exhibited significantly less graft edema and hematoma throughout the follow-up period (p<0.001).
conclusionAutologous PRP significantly enhances STSG fixation and uptake, improves overall graft take rates, and reduces postoperative complications. The immediate adhesion effect provides enhanced graft stability without additional mechanical fixation, which is valuable in anatomically challenging areas. The improvement in graft take rate is clinically significant and can translate into reduced need for regrafting, shorter hospital stays, and improved outcomes. PRP's anti-inflammatory, pro-angiogenic, and hemostatic properties create an optimal environment for graft integration, supporting its incorporation as a valuable adjunct in split-thickness skin grafting procedures.
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.