Biological versus non-biological dressings in the management of split-thickness skin-graft donor sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 604-610
Author(s):  
Shafiq Rahman ◽  
Benjamin Langridge ◽  
Ahmed Al-Hadad ◽  
Rehman Ali Khan ◽  
Muhammad Hyder Junejo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Wound Healing ◽  
Skin Graft ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Split Thickness Skin Graft ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Thickness Skin

Objective: There are currently no definitive guidelines regarding the management of split-thickness skin-graft (STSG) donor sites. The literature reports biological and non-biological dressings as the two main groups; however, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the ideal type. A systematic review and meta-analysis of existing clinical trials was performed to compare biological and non-biological dressings in managing STSG donor sites. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards was used to conduct this study. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched by two authors (SR and BL). Data analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3. Results: In total, 10 studies, consisting of eight randomised controlled trials and two observational assessments, were identified. Wound healing time was faster with biological dressings compared to non-biological dressings (mean difference -5.44 days; p<0.05). A higher epithelialisation rate was also noted for biological dressings. There was no difference in the infection rate between the two study groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15–1.04) or wound exudation (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.01–8.28). The pain level experienced during dressing changes in both groups was reported to be similar. Conclusion: The rate of epithelialisation and wound healing is greater for STSG donor sites when treated with biological dressings, but they offer no difference in terms of reducing pain, limiting infection or exudation.

scholarly journals Polyurethane Versus Calcium Alginate Dressings for Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Site: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulmalik Alsaif ◽  
Mohammad Karam ◽  
Ahmed A Aldubaikhi ◽  
Abdullah Alghufaily ◽  
Khaled Alhuwaishel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Skin Graft ◽  
Calcium Alginate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Split Thickness Skin Graft ◽  
Thickness Skin ◽  
Graft Donor

scholarly journals Interventional radiology versus operative management for splenic injuries: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028172
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kashiura ◽  
Noritaka Yada ◽  
Kazuma Yamakawa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operative Management ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Non Operative Management

IntroductionOver the past decades, the treatment for blunt splenic injuries has shifted from operative to non-operative management. Interventional radiology such as splenic arterial embolisation generally increases the success rate of non-operative management. However, the type of intervention, such as the first definitive treatment for haemostasis (interventional radiology or surgery) in blunt splenic injuries is unclear. Therefore, we aim to clarify whether interventional radiology improves mortality in patients with blunt splenic trauma compared with operative management by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic bibliographic databases to retrieve relevant articles for the literature review: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include controlled trials and observational studies published until September 2018. We will screen search results, assess the study population, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Two review authors will extract data independently, and discrepancies will be identified and resolved through a discussion with a third author where necessary. Data from eligible studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by using the Mantel-Haenszel χ² test and the I² statistic, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I² statistic. We will conduct sensitivity analyses according to several factors relevant for the heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationOur study does not require ethical approval as it is based on the findings of previously published articles. This systematic review will provide guidance on selecting a method for haemostasis of splenic injuries and may also identify knowledge gaps that could direct further research in the field. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108304.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document