Rijpma Danielle, Claes Karel, Pijpe Anouk, Hoeksema Henk, De Decker Ignace, Verbelen Jozef, Stoop Matthea, De Mey Kimberly, Hoste Febe, van Zuijlen Paul, Monstrey Stan, Meij-de Vries Annebeth
Alliance of Dutch Burn Care, Burn Center Beverwijk, Red Cross Hospital, Vondellaan 13, 1942 LE Beverwijk, The Netherlands.
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eur Burn J. 2025 May 19;6(2):26. doi: 10.3390/ebj6020026.
Mesh grafting and Meek micrografting are split-thickness skin graft expansion techniques. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Meek and Mesh expansion ratios 1:2 and 1:3 in smaller wounds. An intra-patient randomized controlled trial was conducted at two burn centers (the Netherlands and Belgium). Wound outcomes, e.g., take rate, re-epithelialization rate, and donor site size, were measured. At 3 months post-surgery, patient preference and scar quality were evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), cutometer and dermaspectrometer. Seventy patients with a TBSA of 10 ± 10% (mean ± SD) were included. The take rate was 79 ± 25% vs. 87 ± 19% ( = 0.003), Meek vs. Mesh, respectively. At follow-up, a majority of observer and patient POSAS items were statistically significantly lower, corresponding with better scar quality for Mesh grafting compared to Meek micrografting. The scar elasticity was 0.37 ± 0.20 vs. 0.42 ± 0.21 ( = 0.013) and mean melanin 13.3 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 7.7 ( = 0.019) for Meek vs. Mesh, respectively, and the patient preference was 32%, 49%, and 19% for Meek, Mesh, and no preference. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant difference. In patients with smaller wounds, Mesh showed superiority on most wound and short-term scar results. Nevertheless, patient preference within the 1:3 expansion ratio group and donor site size were in favor of Meek.
网状植皮和米克微型植皮是中厚皮片移植扩展技术。本研究旨在比较米克法与网状法在1:2和1:3扩展比例下对较小伤口的治疗效果。在两个烧伤中心(荷兰和比利时)进行了一项患者内随机对照试验。测量了伤口愈合情况,如成活率、再上皮化率和供皮区大小。术后3个月,使用患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表(POSAS)、皮肤弹性测量仪和皮肤光谱仪评估患者偏好和瘢痕质量。纳入了70例总体表面积为10±10%(均值±标准差)的患者。米克法与网状法的成活率分别为79±25%和87±19%( = 0.003)。随访时,与米克微型植皮相比,网状植皮的大多数观察者和患者POSAS项目在统计学上显著更低,这与更好的瘢痕质量相对应。米克法与网状法的瘢痕弹性分别为0.37±0.20和0.42±0.21( = 0.013),平均黑色素含量分别为13.3±8.3和12.1±7.7( = 0.019),患者对米克法、网状法和无偏好的比例分别为32%、49%和19%。其他结果无统计学显著差异。在伤口较小的患者中,网状法在大多数伤口和短期瘢痕结果方面表现出优势。然而,在1:3扩展比例组中患者偏好和供皮区大小方面米克法更占优势。