Terrill P J, Goh R C W, Bailey M J
Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
J Wound Care. 2007 Nov;16(10):433-8. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2007.16.10.27912.
To identify the optimal dressing for split-thickness skin graft (SSG) donor sites.
This prospective randomised controlled trial compared two dressings - a new absorbent form of a polyurethane film dressing (Tegaderm Absorbent, 3M) and our standard alginate dressing (Kaltostat, ConvaTec) - on SSG donor sites in 40 patients. Primary outcome measures were: reduced time to full healing; reduced postoperative pain; reduced leakage rates from the dressing. Secondary outcome measures related to acceptability of the dressings to the patient.
On removal of the dressings at the first assessment, 79% of the Tegaderm Absorbent donor sites had healed completely, compared with 16% of the Kaltostat ones (p<0.001).A significantly greater median area had healed with Tegaderm Absorbent (100%), when compared with Kaltostat (89%) (p<0.001). Mean time to complete healing was also significantly faster for Tegaderm Absorbent than Kaltostat (14 versus 21 days) (p<0.001). Significantly fewer subjects experienced postoperative pain with Tegaderm Absorbent on both day 1 (21% versus 67%, p=0.006, NNT=3) and day 2 (17% versus 75%, p<0.001, NNT=2). Leakage rates reduced by 48% with Tegaderm Absorbent, with no leakage in the smaller donor sites. Tegaderm Absorbent was significantly easier to apply than Kaltostat (89% versus 27% found it'very easy') as was ease of removal (84% versus 11% found it'very easy') (p<0.0001). Patients found Tegaderm Absorbent dressings significantly more convenient to manage and bathe with. At one month post-surgery, Vancouver scar scores showed thatTegaderm Absorbent donor sites were less red, flatter, softer and less itchy.
Tegaderm Absorbent provides a significant improvement in terms of donor-site pain, healing and ease of management.
确定用于中厚皮片(SSG)供皮区的最佳敷料。
这项前瞻性随机对照试验在40例患者的SSG供皮区比较了两种敷料——一种新型聚氨酯薄膜吸收性敷料(泰德思吸收型,3M公司)和我们的标准藻酸盐敷料(卡托斯塔,康维德公司)。主要结局指标为:缩短完全愈合时间;减轻术后疼痛;降低敷料渗漏率。次要结局指标与患者对敷料的可接受性有关。
在首次评估时去除敷料时,79%的泰德思吸收型供皮区已完全愈合,而卡托斯塔供皮区的这一比例为16%(p<0.001)。与卡托斯塔(89%)相比,泰德思吸收型敷料愈合的中位面积显著更大(100%)(p<0.001)。泰德思吸收型敷料完全愈合的平均时间也显著快于卡托斯塔(分别为14天和21天)(p<0.001)。在第1天(21%对67%,p=0.006,需治疗人数=NNT=3)和第2天(17%对75%,p<0.001,NNT=2),使用泰德思吸收型敷料术后疼痛的受试者明显更少。泰德思吸收型敷料的渗漏率降低了48%,较小的供皮区无渗漏。泰德思吸收型敷料比卡托斯塔敷料明显更容易应用(89%对27%认为“非常容易”),去除也更容易(84%对11%认为“非常容易”)(p<0.0001)。患者发现泰德思吸收型敷料在管理和沐浴方面明显更方便。术后1个月,温哥华瘢痕评分显示,泰德思吸收型供皮区颜色更淡、更平整、更柔软且瘙痒更少。
泰德思吸收型敷料在供皮区疼痛、愈合及管理便利性方面有显著改善。