Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of Efficacy of Vacuum Dressing Versus Conventional Dressing Over Autologous Split Skin Grafts in Burn Wounds-A Single Centre Prospective Cohort Study.

This study was carried out to compare the efficacy of vacuum dressing and conventional dressing over split skin grafts in burn patients. It was a single-center prospective cohort study on patients, with less than 40% TBSA burn, undergoing skin grafting at two different sites simultaneously over the burn wounds. One site underwent conventional dressing following grafting, and the other underwent vacuum dressing. The primary objective was to compare the percentages of skin graft uptake on Day 5 and Day 14. The secondary objectives were to compare the duration of dressings, time for complete epithelisation, need for re-grafting, and wound swab culture positivity rates. Three independent examiners assessed the efficacy of dressings in terms of epithelisation percentage, need for continued dressing, graft loss, wound swab culture positivity rate, and qualitative assessment of grafts. A total of 16 patients were included in the study. The graft loss, number of days of dressings, and complete epithelization time were statistically lower in the Negative-pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) group compared with the conventional group (p values 0.007, 0.006, and 0.009, respectively). The percentage of epithelisation was also found to be higher in the NPWT group (p=0.006). The incidence of positive cultures and clinically significant graft loss was found to be lower in the NPWT group. However, this was not found to be statistically significant. NPWT dressings can be used in burn wounds following skin grafting and have been found to reduce the time for epithelisation compared to conventional dressing.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app