Method of Securing Skin Graft: A Comparison of Vacuum Assisted Closure Device Versus Bolster Dressing
NCT ID: NCT05831020
Last Updated: 2023-04-26
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
140 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2021-10-21
2022-06-20
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Comparison of Two Methods of Securing Skin Grafts Using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: Vacuum Assisted Closure (VAC) and Gauze Suction (GSUC)
NCT00952120
Study to Determine the Utility of Wound Vacuum Assisted Closure (VAC) Compared to Conventional Saline Dressing Changes
NCT00121537
Vacuum-Assisted Dressings (V-AD) in the Management of Open Chest Wounds
NCT02803164
COMPARISON OF PURSE-STRING CLOSURE VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PRIMARY CLOSURE FOLLOWING STOMA REVERSAL TO REDUCE SURGICAL SITE INFECTION RATE"
NCT04757623
A Comparison of Incisional Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Conventional Dressings Following Abdominal Surgery
NCT02534116
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
All patients were enrolled via non-probability consecutive sampling. The sample size for the current study was calculated as follows:
Mean graft take for VAC group = 96 ±6 Mean graft take for conventionally treated group = 89±20 (10) Level of confidence = 95% Power = 80% A sample of 140 patients (70 per group) was required to detect mean difference of 7 in graft take between two groups as estimated by using the above parameters through online available calculator Open Epi.
Patients visiting outpatient department and requiring skin graft were admitted to Plastic surgery and recruited into the study with their consent. Study purpose and risk and benefits associated with the procedure were explained to the patient to obtain their consent. Total 70 patients in each group, meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated either to the conventional group or new technique group. Random allocation of patients was done using the SNOSE (sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelope) protocol. Total 140 sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes was prepared enclosing the group name with half of the envelop will be enclosing name of group A (VAC group) and other half enclosing the group b (bolster dressing group) and after that envelops was shuffled to ensure randomization.
Skin grafting was performed under general anesthesia. Humby's knife was used to harvest skin graft from donor site. Skin graft was hand meshed and secured to the recipient site circumferentially with absorbable sutures, followed by Tincture of benzoin soaked paraffin gauze layer. For the bolster dressing group, the recipient site was bolstered with wet bulky cotton gauze dressing and wrapped with cotton bandage. 0.9% normal saline was used for moisture. For the Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) Group, two sheets of sterilized VAC sponge that was cut to fit the wound contour were placed with a fenestrated tube between the two layers that was secured to the surrounding skin using tincture of benzoin spray and an adhesive dressing (OPSITE). The VAC was placed at -125mmHg suction and checked for any air leak. Any loss of suction was treated by reinforcing the adhesive dressing over the air leak. The VAC was decompressed and clamped till the patient is shifted back to the ward. Once in ward, The VAC was placed to intermittent -125 mmHg suction for 2 hours and then decompressed for next 2 hours. Bed rest, sling or splint was used for immobilization depending on the location of injury.
Patients were permitted for slight movement for personal hygiene reasons. First dressing change was done on 5th post-operative day. They underwent early change of dressing in case excessive soakage of dressing with blood, serous fluid or foul smelling discharge or pus was present. Dressing of patient was opened on 5th operative day by researcher and then assessed by supervising consultant for percentage of skin graft take and post-operative complications. A pre-designed proforma was designed to collect the data. Patients' data was kept confidential. Medical record no. of patients was tagged with other serial number to assure the confidentiality of the data and only principal investigator had an access to original data.
Data was entered and analyzed by using SPSS version 21. Qualitative variables like gender, socioeconomic status, place of residence, smoking status, medical comorbidities (such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension), graft site, donor site, post-operative complications were presented as frequency with percentages. Quantitative variables such as age, height, weight, BMI, graft size, length of stay in the hospital, percentage of graft take were summarized in terms of mean standard deviation. Effect-modifiers such as age, gender, BMI, smoking status, graft site, graft size, diabetes and hypertension will be controlled through stratification. Post-stratification independent t-test or Mann Whitney U test will be applied to compare percentage of graft take among two treatment groups. Post-stratification chi-square test will be applied to assess difference of post-operative complications among two treatment groups. P-value \<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Group A (VAC group)
For Group A, VAC dressing was placed to secure split thickness skin graft. Two sheets of sterilized VAC sponge that was cut to fit the wound contour were placed with a fenestrated tube between the two layers that was secured to the surrounding skin using tincture of benzoin spray and an adhesive dressing (OPSITE). The VAC was placed to intermittent -125 mmHg suction for 2 hours and then decompressed for next 2 hours.
VAC and bolster dressing
Bolster dressing- Moist bulky cotton gauze dressing and wrapped with cotton bandage.
Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) dressing- A fenestrated tube placed between two sheets of sterilized foam secured to the surrounding skin using adhesive dressing (OPSITE).
Group B (Bolster dressing group)
For Group B, Bolster dressing was done to secure split thickness skin graft. The recipient site was bolstered with wet bulky cotton gauze dressing and wrapped with cotton bandage. 0.9% normal saline was used for moisture.
VAC and bolster dressing
Bolster dressing- Moist bulky cotton gauze dressing and wrapped with cotton bandage.
Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) dressing- A fenestrated tube placed between two sheets of sterilized foam secured to the surrounding skin using adhesive dressing (OPSITE).
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
VAC and bolster dressing
Bolster dressing- Moist bulky cotton gauze dressing and wrapped with cotton bandage.
Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) dressing- A fenestrated tube placed between two sheets of sterilized foam secured to the surrounding skin using adhesive dressing (OPSITE).
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
1. aged 18 years to 60 years
2. either gender
3. ASA grade 1
4. Traumatic wounds of size 25 cm2 to 225 cm2 and of greater than 14 days duration with healthy granulation tissue and
5. Consenting to participate in the study.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Patients with wounds of poor blood supply
3. Patients known for allergy or sensitivity to acrylic adhesives.
18 Years
60 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Dow University of Health Sciences
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Saira Ahmed Chhotani
Dr.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Saira A Chhotani, MBBS
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Dow University of Health Sciences
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Dow University of Health Sciences
Karachi, , Pakistan
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Mohsin M, Zargar HR, Wani AH, Zaroo MI, Baba PUF, Bashir SA, Rasool A, Bijli AH. Role of customised negative-pressure wound therapy in the integration of split-thickness skin grafts: A randomised control study. Indian J Plast Surg. 2017 Jan-Apr;50(1):43-49. doi: 10.4103/ijps.IJPS_196_16.
Scherer LA, Shiver S, Chang M, Meredith JW, Owings JT. The vacuum assisted closure device: a method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival. Arch Surg. 2002 Aug;137(8):930-3; discussion 933-4. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.137.8.930.
Lee SH, Kim YJ. Effectiveness of double tie-over dressing compared with bolster dressing. Arch Plast Surg. 2018 May;45(3):266-270. doi: 10.5999/aps.2017.01424. Epub 2018 May 15.
Dhillon M, Carter CP, Morrison J, Hislop WS, Currie WJ. A comparison of skin graft success in the head & neck with and without the use of a pressure dressing. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015 Jun;14(2):240-2. doi: 10.1007/s12663-014-0618-8. Epub 2014 Feb 11.
Azzopardi EA, Boyce DE, Dickson WA, Azzopardi E, Laing JH, Whitaker IS, Shokrollahi K. Application of topical negative pressure (vacuum-assisted closure) to split-thickness skin grafts: a structured evidence-based review. Ann Plast Surg. 2013 Jan;70(1):23-9. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31826eab9e.
Kucharzewski M, Mieszczanski P, Wilemska-Kucharzewska K, Taradaj J, Kuropatnicki A, Sliwinski Z. The application of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic venous leg ulceration: authors experience. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:297230. doi: 10.1155/2014/297230. Epub 2014 Feb 18.
Yadav S, Rawal G, Baxi M. Vacuum assisted closure technique: a short review. Pan Afr Med J. 2017 Nov 21;28:246. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2017.28.246.9606. eCollection 2017.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
IRB2125/DUHS/Approval/2021/637
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.