Get your full text copy in PDF
Guozhen Gao, Wenjun Li, Xiangjun Chen, Sha Liu, Dexiong Yan, Xingwei Yao, Dezhi Han, Hao Dong
(Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland))
Med Sci Monit 2017; 23:2668-2673
Our research purpose was to compare the curative efficacy of different skin grafting methods for treating third-degree burn wounds.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 105 patients with third-degree burns were involved in this study. The burn wounds of these patients were treated using three different methods: Meek skin grafting, Stamp skin grafting, and Microskin grafting. Patients treated with different methods were placed in different groups. The skin graft survival rate, skin graft fusion time, wound healing time, total time of surgery, and 1% total body surface area (TBSA) treatment costs in each group were evaluated during and after the grafting procedures. After the operations, patients were followed up for 3 to 18 months in order to evaluate the postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: The skin graft survival rate was significantly higher in the Meek group compared to the rates in the Stamp and Microskin groups (both P<0.01). In addition, the skin graft fusion time, wound healing time, and 1% TBSA treatment costs were significantly lower in the Meek group compared to those in the Stamp and Microskin groups (both P<0.01). Furthermore, the Meek group exhibited better results with respect to curative efficacy, scarring status, and joint activity in comparison to the other two groups (both P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The Meek skin grafting method showed better clinical efficacy for treating large wound areas in third-degree burn patients compared to the Stamp and Microskin skin grafting methods.