A comparative study of chlorhexidine-coated tulle gras versus polyurethane adhesive film for donor site wound dressing in split skin graft cases

Paresh Vhora, Mayur G. Baviskar, Riya B. Vakil
{"title":"A comparative study of chlorhexidine-coated tulle gras versus polyurethane adhesive film for donor site wound dressing in split skin graft cases","authors":"Paresh Vhora, Mayur G. Baviskar, Riya B. Vakil","doi":"10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20241959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Restoration of the skin barrier after wounding prevents infection, and minimises wound contraction, cosmetic disfigurement and volume depletion. Skin grafting represents an effective solution for large skin defects. Optimum care for donor-site wounds should promote wound healing cost-effectively while preventing complications like pain, infection, and scarring. Healthcare professionals use various dressings and topical agents, but there is no ideal dressing. In our study, we aim to compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine coated tulle gras (CTG) and polyurethane adhesive film (Opsite) in managing donor site wounds in split skin grafts.\nMethods: This study was conducted at the Department of Surgery, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, a teaching hospital and tertiary care centre in Mumbai, from September 2012 to December 2014, following a prospective observational design, with a sample size of 50 patients.\nResults: The study subjects were predominantly in the 20-30 age group (36.0%) and mostly male (72.0%). The Opsite group reported significantly higher comfort scores (56.0%) compared to the CTG group (36.0%, p=0.002). Healing time was significantly shorter in the Opsite group (7.36±0.7 days) compared to the CTG group (9.52±1.39 days, p=0.001). Pain scores were significantly lower in the Opsite group at all observed times. Deviations like soakage and slippage were frequent in the Opsite group (76.0% and 56.0%, respectively).\nConclusions: Opsite has advantages over CTG viz. faster healing and re-epithelization, decreased pain, and greater comfort. However, soakage and exudate formation are seen with Opsite.","PeriodicalId":14210,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences","volume":"16 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20241959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Restoration of the skin barrier after wounding prevents infection, and minimises wound contraction, cosmetic disfigurement and volume depletion. Skin grafting represents an effective solution for large skin defects. Optimum care for donor-site wounds should promote wound healing cost-effectively while preventing complications like pain, infection, and scarring. Healthcare professionals use various dressings and topical agents, but there is no ideal dressing. In our study, we aim to compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine coated tulle gras (CTG) and polyurethane adhesive film (Opsite) in managing donor site wounds in split skin grafts. Methods: This study was conducted at the Department of Surgery, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, a teaching hospital and tertiary care centre in Mumbai, from September 2012 to December 2014, following a prospective observational design, with a sample size of 50 patients. Results: The study subjects were predominantly in the 20-30 age group (36.0%) and mostly male (72.0%). The Opsite group reported significantly higher comfort scores (56.0%) compared to the CTG group (36.0%, p=0.002). Healing time was significantly shorter in the Opsite group (7.36±0.7 days) compared to the CTG group (9.52±1.39 days, p=0.001). Pain scores were significantly lower in the Opsite group at all observed times. Deviations like soakage and slippage were frequent in the Opsite group (76.0% and 56.0%, respectively). Conclusions: Opsite has advantages over CTG viz. faster healing and re-epithelization, decreased pain, and greater comfort. However, soakage and exudate formation are seen with Opsite.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在分割植皮病例中,使用氯己定涂层薄纱与聚氨酯胶膜对供体部位伤口进行包扎的比较研究
背景:伤口愈合后恢复皮肤屏障可防止感染,并最大限度地减少伤口收缩、外观毁损和容积耗竭。皮肤移植是治疗大面积皮肤缺损的有效方法。对供皮部位伤口的最佳护理应能以经济有效的方式促进伤口愈合,同时预防疼痛、感染和疤痕等并发症。医护人员会使用各种敷料和外用药剂,但目前还没有理想的敷料。在我们的研究中,我们旨在比较洗必泰涂层薄纱格拉斯(CTG)和聚氨酯胶膜(Opsite)在处理劈离植皮供体部位伤口方面的功效:本研究于 2012 年 9 月至 2014 年 12 月在孟买教学医院和三级医疗中心 Lokmanya Tilak 市立医学院外科系进行,采用前瞻性观察设计,样本量为 50 名患者:研究对象主要集中在 20-30 岁年龄段(36.0%),男性居多(72.0%)。与 CTG 组(36.0%,P=0.002)相比,Opsite 组的舒适度评分(56.0%)明显更高。Opsite 组的愈合时间(7.36±0.7 天)明显短于 CTG 组(9.52±1.39 天,P=0.001)。在所有观察时间内,Opsite 组的疼痛评分均明显较低。Opsite组经常出现浸泡和滑脱等偏差(分别为76.0%和56.0%):与 CTG 相比,Opsite 具有愈合和重新上皮更快、疼痛减轻和更舒适等优点。然而,Opsite 会出现浸泡和渗出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The role of roxithromycin in the treatment of respiratory tract infections: a comprehensive overview Vacuum assisted closure as adjuvant therapy for a mangled upper extremity injury Disseminated annular granuloma: a rare dermatological manifestation of diabetes Establishing normal gallbladder volume: a comparative study of dual energy computed tomography and ultrasound measurements in a North Indian population A comparative study of chlorhexidine-coated tulle gras versus polyurethane adhesive film for donor site wound dressing in split skin graft cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1