Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Comparison of Skin Graft Success in the Head & Neck With and Without the Use of a Pressure Dressing

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The success of skin grafting is dependent on the interplay between many factors including nutrient uptake and vascular in-growth. To allow this, it is important that the graft is immobile and traditionally a ‘pressure dressing’ has been placed over the graft to improve outcome and graft ‘take’. We present the findings of our comparative study of full-thickness skin grafts performed in the head, neck and face region over a period of 24 months. We felt that there was an unacceptably high infection rate and graft failure using pressure dressings.

Methods

Data was collected retrospectively from the case notes on 70 patients who had undergone full-thickness skin grafting to the head, neck and face over a 2 year period. Thirty-five patients underwent grafting with pressure dressing and 35 without. The group with the pressure dressing had the same ‘bolster’ specification-type dressing and those without had their graft ‘quilted’ in and chloramphenicol ointment applied topically. Success was determined by the percentage ‘take’ of the grafts and absence of infection i.e. purulence.

Results

Infection in those with a pressure dressing stood at 26 % in contrast to those without, at 9 %. Without a pressure dressing we observed no total graft failures, compared to 6 % in those with a pressure dressing.

Conclusions

The results confirmed the perception that there was a higher infection and graft failure rate where a pressure dressing was applied; however, this was not a statistically significant difference and a randomised control trial with a larger sample size would be required to validate the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Salasche SJ, Egan CA, Gerwels JW (1998) Surgical pearl: use of a sponge bolster instead of a tie-over bolster as a less invasive method of securing full-thickness skin grafts. J Am Acad Dermatol 39(6):1000–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Erel E, Sinha M, Nancarrow JD (2008) The ‘pull out’ tie-over dressing. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61(4):460–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Argenta et al (1997) Vacuum assisted closure. Ann Plast Surg 38:563

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gillies H, Millard D (1957) The principles and art of plastic surgery, vol 1, 1st edn. Little Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atherton et al (2008) A randomised controlled trial of a double layer of Allevyn compared to Jellonet and proflavin as a tie-over dressing for small skin grafts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61:535–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Dhillon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dhillon, M., Carter, C.P., Morrison, J. et al. A Comparison of Skin Graft Success in the Head & Neck With and Without the Use of a Pressure Dressing. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 14, 240–242 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0618-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0618-8

Keywords

Navigation