Negative-pressure dressings in lower limb skin grafts: a randomised control trial of PICO versus standard dressings

Lisa J Ellis, P. Terrill, W. Rozen
{"title":"Negative-pressure dressings in lower limb skin grafts: a randomised control trial of PICO versus standard dressings","authors":"Lisa J Ellis, P. Terrill, W. Rozen","doi":"10.34239/ajops.v4n2.231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can reduce the incidence of exudate and haematoma beneath a split-thickness skin graft (SSG) compared with traditional standard dressings. However, NPWT has not been universally adopted for lower limb SSGs despite evidence that its use is linked with improved graft take and a tendency towards early mobilisation. PICO (Smith and Nephew®), an ultra-lightweight NPWT device now available in Australia, can provide a smaller, more manageable NPWT dressing. The primary objective of this study was to compare lower limb graft take rate in PICO versus standard dressing groups, and a secondary objective was comparing quality of life (QOL) in these groups. Method: A prospective, randomised control trial was conducted of 71 lower limb wounds from 59 patients, with 36 wounds randomised to standard dressings and 35 to PICO dressings. Graft take was measured and expressed as a percentage of total wound area. Postoperative mobilisation day, patient comfort, complication frequencies, ease of dressing removal and QOL scores were also recorded. Results: The graft area percentage was not statistically significantly different between the PICO and standard dressing groups (p=0.054). All patients in the PICO group were mobilised by postoperative day one, but 8 per cent in the standard dressing group were still not mobilised by postoperative day five (PICO vs standard, p=0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in patient comfort, patient QOL or complication frequency in the PICO versus standard dressing group at any postoperative visit, but the PICO dressings were statistically significantly easier to remove (p=0.04). Conclusion: PICO dressings are not inferior or superior to standard dressings for lower limb SSGs.","PeriodicalId":264055,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","volume":"31 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34239/ajops.v4n2.231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can reduce the incidence of exudate and haematoma beneath a split-thickness skin graft (SSG) compared with traditional standard dressings. However, NPWT has not been universally adopted for lower limb SSGs despite evidence that its use is linked with improved graft take and a tendency towards early mobilisation. PICO (Smith and Nephew®), an ultra-lightweight NPWT device now available in Australia, can provide a smaller, more manageable NPWT dressing. The primary objective of this study was to compare lower limb graft take rate in PICO versus standard dressing groups, and a secondary objective was comparing quality of life (QOL) in these groups. Method: A prospective, randomised control trial was conducted of 71 lower limb wounds from 59 patients, with 36 wounds randomised to standard dressings and 35 to PICO dressings. Graft take was measured and expressed as a percentage of total wound area. Postoperative mobilisation day, patient comfort, complication frequencies, ease of dressing removal and QOL scores were also recorded. Results: The graft area percentage was not statistically significantly different between the PICO and standard dressing groups (p=0.054). All patients in the PICO group were mobilised by postoperative day one, but 8 per cent in the standard dressing group were still not mobilised by postoperative day five (PICO vs standard, p=0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in patient comfort, patient QOL or complication frequency in the PICO versus standard dressing group at any postoperative visit, but the PICO dressings were statistically significantly easier to remove (p=0.04). Conclusion: PICO dressings are not inferior or superior to standard dressings for lower limb SSGs.
下肢皮肤移植负压敷料:PICO与标准敷料的随机对照试验
目的:与传统的标准敷料相比,负压创面治疗(NPWT)可减少裂皮移植(SSG)下渗出液和血肿的发生率。然而,尽管有证据表明NPWT的使用与移植物的改善和早期活动的趋势有关,但NPWT尚未被普遍采用于下肢ssg。PICO (Smith and Nephew®)是一种超轻型NPWT设备,现已在澳大利亚上市,可以提供更小,更易于管理的NPWT敷料。本研究的主要目的是比较PICO组与标准敷料组的下肢移植率,次要目的是比较两组的生活质量(QOL)。方法:对59例71例下肢创面进行前瞻性随机对照试验,其中36例创面采用标准敷料,35例采用PICO敷料。测量移植物摄取量,并以总创面面积的百分比表示。记录术后活动天数、患者舒适度、并发症发生率、脱敷料难易程度及生活质量评分。结果:PICO组与标准敷料组移植面积百分比差异无统计学意义(p=0.054)。PICO组所有患者在术后第一天活动,但标准敷料组中8%的患者在术后第5天仍未活动(PICO vs标准,p=0.003)。PICO敷料组与标准敷料组在术后任何一次就诊时患者舒适度、患者生活质量或并发症发生率均无统计学差异,但PICO敷料更容易取出,具有统计学意义(p=0.04)。结论:PICO敷料与标准敷料治疗下肢ssg无优劣之分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信