Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Reconstr Microsurg Open 2018; 03(02): e46-e49
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1668561
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Miniaturized Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites

Stuart L. Mitchell
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Edward Ray
2   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Peter G. Cordeiro
2   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was funded, in part, through the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.
Further Information

Publication History

14 February 2018

18 June 2018

Publication Date:
24 August 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Multiple therapeutic options exist for the treatment of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites, but there is no clear consensus among surgeons about the best option. Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has rapidly gained in popularity since its invention. Recently, several miniaturized, single-patient NPWT (SP-NPWT) devices have become available. Compared with traditional NPWT devices, SP-NPWT devices are associated with equal wound healing capability and reliability, but offer several advantages. We present a series of 10 consecutive patients whose STSG donor sites were treated with a commercially available SP-NPWT device.

Methods We performed a retrospective review for 10 consecutive patients who underwent STSG procedures and were treated with SP-NPWT devices.

Results From 2015 to 2017, 10 consecutive patients underwent oncologic reconstruction using STSG and had their donor sites treated with SP-NPWT devices. The SP-NPWT dressing had been left in place for 2 weeks after surgery. The average donor site area measured 80 cm2 (range: 76–106 cm2). In all 10 patients, the donor sites healed uneventfully and with no complications.

Conclusion Off-the-shelf, miniaturized, SP-NPWT systems appear to be at least as effective as traditional dressings for STSG donor sites and require no maintenance (skilled nursing or dressing changes). Compared with larger and less portable standard NPWT devices, SP-NPWT dressing systems provide a potential cost benefit as well as enhanced convenience and portability.

Keywords

single-patient negative-pressure wound therapy - split-thickness skin graft donor site - vacuum-assisted closure - PICO single-use NPWT system
 

  • References

  • 1 Thorne CH, Chung KC, Gosain AK. , et al. Grabb and Smith's Plastic Surgery. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Voineskos SH, Ayeni OA, McKnight L, Thoma A. Systematic review of skin graft donor-site dressings. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (01) 298-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 38 (06) 553-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 38 (06) 563-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Payne C, Edwards D. Application of the single use negative pressure wound therapy device (PICO) on a heterogeneous group of surgical and traumatic wounds. Eplasty 2014; 14: e20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Selvaggi F, Pellino G, Sciaudone G. , et al. New advances in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for surgical wounds of patients affected with Crohn's disease. Surg Technol Int 2014; 24: 83-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Huang C, Leavitt T, Bayer LR, Orgill DP. Effect of negative pressure wound therapy on wound healing. Curr Probl Surg 2014; 51 (07) 301-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Trop M, Schintler M, Urban E, Roedl S, Stockenhuber A. Are 1:4 mesh and donor site contraindications for vacuum-assisted closure device?. J Trauma 2006; 61 (05) 1267-1270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Waltzman JT, Bell DE. Vacuum-assisted closure device as a split-thickness skin graft bolster in the burn population. J Burn Care Res 2014; 35 (05) e338-e342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sposato G, Molea G, Di Caprio G, Scioli M, La Rusca I, Ziccardi P. Ambulant vacuum-assisted closure of skin-graft dressing in the lower limbs using a portable mini-VAC device. Br J Plast Surg 2001; 54 (03) 235-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Llanos S, Danilla S, Barraza C. , et al. Effectiveness of negative pressure closure in the integration of split thickness skin grafts: a randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Ann Surg 2006; 244 (05) 700-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Petkar KS, Dhanraj P, Kingsly PM. , et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing negative pressure dressing and conventional dressing methods on split-thickness skin grafts in burned patients. Burns 2011; 37 (06) 925-929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Azzopardi EA, Boyce DE, Dickson WA. , et al. Application of topical negative pressure (vacuum-assisted closure) to split-thickness skin grafts: a structured evidence-based review. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70 (01) 23-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Moisidis E, Heath T, Boorer C, Ho K, Deva AK. A prospective, blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of topical negative pressure use in skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (04) 917-922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Genecov DG, Schneider AM, Morykwas MJ, Parker D, White WL, Argenta LC. A controlled subatmospheric pressure dressing increases the rate of skin graft donor site reepithelialization. Ann Plast Surg 1998; 40 (03) 219-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nuutila K, Siltanen A, Peura M. , et al. Gene expression profiling of negative-pressure-treated skin graft donor site wounds. Burns 2013; 39 (04) 687-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Malmsjö M, Huddleston E, Martin R. Biological effects of a disposable, canisterless negative pressure wound therapy system. Eplasty 2014; 14: e15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pellino G, Sciaudone G, Candilio G, Campitiello F, Selvaggi F, Canonico S. Effects of a new pocket device for negative pressure wound therapy on surgical wounds of patients affected with Crohn's disease: a pilot trial. Surg Innov 2014; 21 (02) 204-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Holt R, Murphy J. PICO™ incision closure in oncoplastic breast surgery: a case series. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2015; 76 (04) 217-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gabriel A, Thimmappa B, Rubano C, Storm-Dickerson T. Evaluation of an ultra-lightweight, single-patient-use negative pressure wound therapy system over dermal regeneration template and skin grafts. Int Wound J 2013; 10 (04) 418-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Isaac AL, Rose J, Armstrong DG. Mechanically powered negative pressure wound therapy as a bolster for skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014; 2 (02) e103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Demaria M, Stanley BJ, Hauptman JG. , et al. Effects of negative pressure wound therapy on healing of open wounds in dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (06) 658-669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Khanbhai M, Fosah R, Oddy MJ, Richards T. Disposable NPWT device to facilitate early patient discharge following complex DFU. J Wound Care 2012; 21 (04) 180-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar