Minced skin grafts for chronic wounds compared to conventional mesh grafts

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims Skin grafting is the single most effective method to close a chronic wound. The current standard of care is to use meshed split thickness skin grafts. This entails the use of surgical instruments that need to be autoclaved and to have a power source, which usually requires an OR facility. The minced skin technique uses single use, presterilized instruments and the procedure can be done under local anesthesia, by a wound care practitioner, in a wound clinic, a physician's office or even at the bedside. The current study was designed to determine if the results from micrografting were non inferior to conventional mesh grafting. Methods In a prospective non inferiority study, 26 chronic ulcers were treated with micrografting (MSG) and 24 with conventional mesh grafts 1:3 (control group‐CG) in a total of 21 patients, 10 male and 11 female. The donor site areas in the MSG group were predetermined to 2.5 × 5 cm and the mesh grafts expansion was set at 1:3. Results In the first weeks postoperatively, micrograft healing initially lagged behind the conventional mesh grafts but at 60 days after grafting, all MSG wounds were healed. The MSG wounds had better pigmentation, less itching, and less scarring. The micrografting procedure was easy to learn and expeditious to perform. The MSG mean expansion was 9.1 compared to three times (CG). Conclusion The MSG procedure is not inferior to conventional mesh grafting, requires smaller donor sites, and can be done with single use instruments, under local anesthesia, with early discharge.

Keywords

• burns
• chronic wounds
• micrografts
• skin graft expansion
• skin grafts
• wound care