FindTrial
Sign In

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of different donor site dressing methods in patients undergoing split thickness skin grafting.

Prospective comparative analysis of different donor site dressing methods in patients undergoing split thickness skin grafting with respect to pain score, wound healing, infection and cosmetic outcome.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2023/03/050560
Enrollment
500
Registered
2023-03-10
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-04-03

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: L988- Other specified disorders of the skin and subcutaneous tissue

Interventions

Control Intervention1: Cadaver skin graft: Donor site analyzed immediately after skin harvest, on post operative day 1, 7, 21 and at the end of 6 months. Control Intervention2: Chlorhexidine tulle gra

Sponsors

self
Lead Sponsor
Dr D Y Patil Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Navi Mumbai
Collaborator

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged between 18 to 70 years having donor site area ranging from 2% to 80% total body surface area on their either thigh and dressed with either of the folllowing dressing materials- chlorhexidine tulle gras dressing, collagen dressing, contact-layer silver lipido-colloid dressing, non-adhesive silver foam dressing and cadaver skin graft

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients on steroids, local irradiation, malignancy, collagen vascular diseases, severe anaemia (Hb < 10gm/dl), hypoproteinaemia (total serum proteins < 6 g/dl and total serum albumin < 3.4 /dl), immunocompromise, diabetes mellitus, underlying skin disease, chronic smokers, and patients who failed to follow up for six months.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Outcomes of all five dressing methods were evaluated in terms of: 1.Pain score using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on POD 1, 7 and 21. 2.Wound healing in terms of percentage of total donor surface area re-epithelialized on POD 21. 3.Infection determined by presence of superficial incisional SSI on or before POD 21. 4.Cosmetic outcome assessed by Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) on POD 21 and at the end of 6 months. Timepoint: Outcomes of all five dressing methods were evaluated in terms of: 1.Pain score using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on POD 1, 7 and 21. 2.Wound healing in terms of percentage of total donor surface area re-epithelialized on POD 21. 3.Infection determined by presence of superficial incisional SSI on or before POD 21. 4.Cosmetic outcome assessed by Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) on POD 21 and at the end of 6 months.—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
To recommend the best donor site wound dressing method with respect to availability. 2. To recommend the best donor site wound dressing method with respect to cost.Timepoint: Post operative day 21 and at the end of 6 months—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Vedanti Rajesh Patil

D Y Patil Hospital, Navi Mumbai

vedanti.patil@gmail.com9930430788

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026