Sticking to What Matters: A Matched Comparative Study of Fibrin Glue and Mechanical Fixation for Split-Thickness Skin Grafts in the Lower Extremity.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY
Sammy Othman, Charles A Messa, Omar Elfanagely, Bradford Bormann, Joseph A Mellia, Robyn B Broach, Stephen J Kovach, John P Fischer
{"title":"Sticking to What Matters: A Matched Comparative Study of Fibrin Glue and Mechanical Fixation for Split-Thickness Skin Grafts in the Lower Extremity.","authors":"Sammy Othman, Charles A Messa, Omar Elfanagely, Bradford Bormann, Joseph A Mellia, Robyn B Broach, Stephen J Kovach, John P Fischer","doi":"10.1177/15347346211047748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) remain a valuable tool in the reconstructive surgeons' armamentarium. Staple or suture mechanical fixation (MF) serves as the gold standard of care, though fibrin glue (FG) has gained popularity as a fixation modality. We compare STSG outcomes following application of FG versus MF through a study of lower extremity wounds. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective review (2016-2019) of patients who underwent a STSG was performed. Two cohorts consisting of patients undergoing a STSG with FG or MF (suture or staple) were matched according to wound size, wound location, and body mass index. <b>Results:</b> A total of 67 patients with 79 wounds were included (FG: n = 30, wounds = 39; MF: n = 37; wounds = 40). There was no significant difference between groups regarding time to 100% graft take (FG: 39 days, MF: 35.1 days; <i>P</i> < .384) or 180-day graft complications (FG: 10.3%, MF: 15%; <i>P</i> < .737). Adjusted operative time for FG (51.8 min) was lower than for MF cases (67.5 min) at a level that approached significance (<i>P</i> < .094). FG patients were significantly less likely to require a postoperative wound vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) (FG: 16.7%; MF: 76.7%; <i>P</i> < .001) and required a significantly lower number of 30-day postoperative visits (FG: 1.5 ± .78 visits; MF: 2.5 ± .03 visits; <i>P</i> < .001). The MF group had higher mean aggregate charges ($211,090) compared with the FG group (mean: $149,907), although these were not statistically significant (<i>P</i> > .05). <b>Conclusion:</b> The use of FG for STSG shows comparable clinical outcomes to MF, with a significantly decreased need for postoperative wound VAC, the number of 30-day postoperative visits, and a lower wound-adjusted operative time.</p>","PeriodicalId":49181,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds","volume":" ","pages":"231-237"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346211047748","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) remain a valuable tool in the reconstructive surgeons' armamentarium. Staple or suture mechanical fixation (MF) serves as the gold standard of care, though fibrin glue (FG) has gained popularity as a fixation modality. We compare STSG outcomes following application of FG versus MF through a study of lower extremity wounds. Methods: A retrospective review (2016-2019) of patients who underwent a STSG was performed. Two cohorts consisting of patients undergoing a STSG with FG or MF (suture or staple) were matched according to wound size, wound location, and body mass index. Results: A total of 67 patients with 79 wounds were included (FG: n = 30, wounds = 39; MF: n = 37; wounds = 40). There was no significant difference between groups regarding time to 100% graft take (FG: 39 days, MF: 35.1 days; P < .384) or 180-day graft complications (FG: 10.3%, MF: 15%; P < .737). Adjusted operative time for FG (51.8 min) was lower than for MF cases (67.5 min) at a level that approached significance (P < .094). FG patients were significantly less likely to require a postoperative wound vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) (FG: 16.7%; MF: 76.7%; P < .001) and required a significantly lower number of 30-day postoperative visits (FG: 1.5 ± .78 visits; MF: 2.5 ± .03 visits; P < .001). The MF group had higher mean aggregate charges ($211,090) compared with the FG group (mean: $149,907), although these were not statistically significant (P > .05). Conclusion: The use of FG for STSG shows comparable clinical outcomes to MF, with a significantly decreased need for postoperative wound VAC, the number of 30-day postoperative visits, and a lower wound-adjusted operative time.

坚持到底:下肢裂开厚皮移植的纤维蛋白胶和机械固定的匹配比较研究。
背景:裂厚皮肤移植(STSG)仍然是整形外科医生的重要工具。尽管纤维蛋白胶(FG)作为一种固定方式越来越受欢迎,但缝合线或订书钉机械固定(MF)仍是治疗的黄金标准。我们通过对下肢伤口的研究,比较了使用 FG 和 MF 后的 STSG 效果。方法:我们对接受 STSG 的患者进行了回顾性研究(2016-2019 年)。根据伤口大小、伤口位置和体重指数,对使用 FG 或 MF(缝合线或订书钉)进行 STSG 的患者进行配对。结果:共纳入 67 名患者,79 个伤口(FG:n = 30,伤口 = 39;MF:n = 37,伤口 = 40)。各组在 100%移植物吸收时间上无明显差异(FG:39 天,MF:35.1 天;P P P P P > .05)。结论:使用 FG 进行 STSG 的临床效果与 MF 相当,术后伤口 VAC 需求显著减少,术后 30 天就诊次数显著减少,伤口调整后的手术时间也更短。
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
4.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
95
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds (IJLEW) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, reviews of evidence-based diagnostic techniques and methods, disease and patient management, and surgical and medical therapeutics for lower extremity wounds such as burns, stomas, ulcers, fistulas, and traumatic wounds. IJLEW also offers evaluations of assessment and monitoring tools, dressings, gels, cleansers, pressure management, footwear/orthotics, casting, and bioengineered skin. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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