Comparison of the effect of a collagen dressing and a polyurethane dressing on the healing of split thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites.

Recent advances in the resurfacing of burn wounds with dermal equivalents and collagen preparations have shown the efficacy of collagen. To investigate the benefits (if any), standardised split skin donor areas were chosen to compare the influence of collagen on re-epithelialisation. A bovine collagen preparation consisting of type-I collagen was prospectively compared with polyurethane film dressing in a study of 20 split thickness skin graft donor sites. The rates of epithelialisation, the discomfort experienced by the patients and the convenience of the dressings were assessed. The median time from operation to the observation of complete healing was 7.5 (+/- 2.5) days for the donor sites dressed with the collagen membrane and 12.5 (+/- 3.4) days for the the donor areas dressed with a polyurethane film (p < 0.001). The discomfort experienced by the two groups of patients was significantly less after wound coverage with collagen (p < 0.005). Haematomas or seromas that required repeated aspiration was seen under the polyurethane film dressing. The collagen dressing was more expensive than the polyurethane film, but improved wound healing compared with the polyurethane dressings.

[1]  H. Bannasch,et al.  Fibrin Glue as a Carrier for Cultured Human Keratinocytes versus Cultured Epidermal Skin Grafts in Athymic Mice Full-thickness Wounds , 1998 .

[2]  J. Clarke,et al.  Dermasorb versus Jelonet in patients with burns skin graft donor sites. , 1996, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[3]  L. Germain,et al.  Permanent grafting of living skin substitutes: surgical parameters to control for successful results. , 1996, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[4]  D. J. Wainwright Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns. , 1995, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[5]  J. Hansbrough Use of Biobrane for extensive posterior donor site wounds. , 1995, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[6]  T. Sauter,et al.  A comparison of Xeroform and SkinTemp dressings in the healing of skin graft donor sites. , 1995, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[7]  D. Gore,et al.  Evaluation of calcium alginate for skin graft donor sites. , 1995, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[8]  R. Dover,et al.  Toxicity testing of wound dressing materials in vitro. , 1995, British journal of plastic surgery.

[9]  L. Bolton,et al.  Microbiology and Healing of the Occluded Skin‐Graft Donor Site , 1993, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[10]  J. Risteli,et al.  Collagen Synthesis in Intact Skin Is Suppressed During Wound Healing , 1993, Annals of surgery.

[11]  R. Spence,et al.  Porcine dermal collagen as a wound dressing for skin donor sites and deep partial skin thickness burns. , 1992, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[12]  P. Vanstraelen Comparison of calcium sodium alginate (KALTOSTAT) and porcine xenograft (E-Z DERM) in the healing of split-thickness skin graft donor sites. , 1992, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[13]  D. Feldman,et al.  A prospective trial comparing Biobrane, Duoderm and xeroform for skin graft donor sites. , 1991, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[14]  V. Lees,et al.  A comparison of the use of polythene sheet and Jelonet as temporary dressings for excised wounds. , 1991, British journal of plastic surgery.

[15]  J. Porter A comparative investigation of re-epithelialisation of split skin graft donor areas after application of hydrocolloid and alginate dressings. , 1991, British journal of plastic surgery.

[16]  M. Erasmus,et al.  Water vapour permeance: a meaningful measure for water vapour permeability of wound coverings. , 1989, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[17]  A. Attwood Calcium alginate dressing accelerates split skin graft donor site healing. , 1989, British journal of plastic surgery.

[18]  R. Yurt,et al.  Comparison of an occlusive and a semi-occlusive dressing and the effect of the wound exudate upon keratinocyte proliferation. , 1989, The Journal of trauma.

[19]  J. Baguet,et al.  An in vitro evaluation of the hemostatic activity of topical agents. , 1988, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[20]  A. Sutherland,et al.  A new approach to the problems encountered with Opsite as a donor site dressing: systemic ethamsylate. , 1986, British journal of plastic surgery.

[21]  M. Tempest An environment for healing: The role of occlusion , 1986 .

[22]  D. Price,et al.  The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain , 1983, Pain.

[23]  B. T. Teh Why Do Skin Grafts Fail? , 1979, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[24]  R. Bartlett,et al.  Modified collagen membrane as a skin substitute: preliminary studies. , 1975, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[25]  A. Watson,et al.  The use of Opsite, a vapour permeable dressing, on skin graft donor sites. , 1975, British journal of plastic surgery.

[26]  M. Robson,et al.  Amniotic membranes as a temporary wound dressing. , 1973, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[27]  M. Charlton,et al.  Growth of postembryonic skin epithelial cells on collagen gels. , 1971, The Journal of investigative dermatology.