Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 27342

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : February | Volume : 6 | Issue : 1 | Page : 72 - 75

A Clinical Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Hydrocolloid versus Paraffin Gauze Dressing for Split Thickness Skin Graft Donor Site Treatment

Shaileshkumar M.E., Pramod Mirji, Vishwanath G., S.I. Basarkod, Chhaya Joshi, Rajani Patil

1. Assistant professor, Dept of Surgery, 2. Assistant Professor, Dept of Surgery, 3. Associate Professor, Dept of Surgery, 4. Associate Professor, Dept of Surgery, 5. Assistant Professor, Dept of Anaesthesia, 6. Junior Resident, Dept of Surgery, SN Medical college & HSK Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India-587101.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Shaileshkumar M.E MS, Assistant Professor,
Dept. of Surgery, SN Medical College and HSK Hospital,
Bagalkot, Karnataka, India-587101,
Phone: 9986308914
E-mail: shaileshemmi@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: In spite of newer advances, split thickness skin grafts (STSG) still have an important place in many areas of general and plastic surgery. Though the technique of skin grafting is more or less standardized, the treatment of the donor site differs greatly and has been a topic of debate. The management of split-thickness skin graft donor site is targeted towards promoting the healing process, while minimizing adverse effects and complications.
Objective: To compare the percentage of epithelialization achieved by Hydrocolloid in comparison to Standard meshed Paraffin gauze on the Split thickness donor site on 12th post operative day.
Design: Clinical control trial
Setting: H S K hospital, Bagalkot
Population: 30 adult patients requiring STSG for various etiologies between April 2011 to August 2011.
Materials and Methods: The study included 30 adult patients. Half of the skin graft donor site in the proximal thigh was dressed with Hydrocolloid dressings and the rest with Standard paraffin Gauze dressing. The extent of epithelialization achieved by each of these dressings was assessed on 12th post op day after skin grafting.
Results: The number of donor areas that achieved complete (100%) epithelialization on the 12th post operative day by Paraffin gauze dressing was 7 (23.3%), whereas Hydrocolloid dressing achieved complete epithelialization in 18 donor sites (60%) (P = 0.016).
Conclusion: Hydrocolloid dressings are superior to Standard meshed Paraffin gauze dressings in the treatment of Split thickness skin graft donor areas.

Keywords

Split skin donor sites, Paraffin gauze, Surgery, Wound

INTRODUCTION
Dressing of wounds is a practice carried through centuries in order to protect the wound from the harmful external environment. The act of covering a wound mimics the function of the epidermis. Haemostasis aided by a dressing limits blood loss and minimises the dissemination of microbes and toxins, limits oedema, reduces pain and improves gas and solute exchange between blood and tissue (1). In spite of various newer advances in wound coverage, split thickness skin grafts (STSG) still have an important place in many areas of plastic surgery. Though the technique of skin grafting is more or less standardized the treatment of the donor site has been a topic for debate. The STSG donor site usually receives little attention and is often a source of delayed healing with considerable pain and discomfort to the patient. To overcome this various dressing materials have been used (2). The donor sites are managed with closed & open dressings with the latter being abandoned now. Meshed paraffin gauze is most commonly used in the closed dressings (3). But it usually dries up & converts into a dry dressing eventually, resulting in considerable pain & discomfort to the patient with movements & at removal (4), (5). Studies have shown that a moist environment promotes healing in a partial thickness skin loss. The use of polyurethane film, a semi permeable dressing maintains a moist Original Article Surgery Section environment allowing diffusion of oxygen and water vapour while providing a barrier to the passage of wound exudates. It has claimed to reduce the healing time and donor site pain. However it has proved difficult to use as wound exudate collects beneath the film and is liable to leak out (4), (5). Hence the advent of newer Moisture retaining dressings like Hydrocolloids & Alginates. Our study aims at comparing the efficacy of one of these newer dressings with Meshed paraffin gauze in the management of STSG donor sites.

Material and Methods

All eligible patients undergoing split thickness skin grafting at SNMC & HSK Hospital Bagalkot from April 2011 to August 2011were included for the study. Suitable enrollees were adult non diabetic patients between the age group of 19 to 65 yrs, requiring split thickness skin grafting for various etiologies at SNMC & HSK Hospital, Bagalkot during the period of April 2011 to August 2011.The donor area being restricted to anterior thigh measuring between 10x8 to 20x8 cm. Those who were not included for the study are when a split thickness skin graft has already been taken from the same donor area and when donor site wound is of non uniform depth.A sample size of 30 was taken based on HSK Hospital statistics.
Study design: Non randomized Clinical comparative trial.
Method: In all suitable enrollees split thickness skin graft of approximately 0.3 mm thickness was taken from the anterior thigh using a Humby’s knife. Immediately after taking the graft, the donor site was covered with saline soaked gauze for hemostasis. The donor area was then divided into two equal halves, the proximal half being marked “A” and the distal being “B”. On area “A”, 10 x 10 cm Hydrocolliod dressing was placed & on area “B”, a 10 x 10cm Standard meshed paraffin gauze was placed. A pad & roller bandage were then applied over the primary dressing .The outer dressing was inspected on the 3rd post operative day, noting any signs of infection, if any then those patients were excluded from the study & were treated accordingly. Then the donor site was inspected by a treatment blinded observer after removal of dressings on 12th post operative day to assess the epithelialization & was graded as none (1), less than 50 % ( 2), more than 50% but not complete (3), or complete (4). A numeric score given to each rating is indicated in the brackets. Also photographs of donor site after removal of dressings on 12th post operative day were obtained. These photographed images were rated on the same scale by an independent treatment blinded senior surgeon of the Hospital & an average of these readings was taken.

Results

Thirty paired side-by-side donor sites were studied. The donor site was divided into two equal halves A (proximal half) and B (distal half). On area A, a 10 x 10 cm Hydrocolliod dressing was placed & on area B, 10 x 10cm Standard meshed paraffin gauze was placed. A pad & roller bandage were then applied over the primary dressing and the outer dressing was inspected 3 days later to note any signs of infection. The donor site was inspected by a treatment blinded observer and a senior surgeon, after removal of dressings on 12th post operative day to assess the epithelialization percentage and scoring was done according to the predefined criteria. All data was analyzed using Chi-square test. The study cohort consisted of a total of 30 patients meeting the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 23 of them were males and 7 were females. The mean age of the study population was 38.5+/–14.59 yrs (40.6+/–13.22yrs for males and 31.7+/– 17.86yrs for females). The sex distribution of the patients has been summarized in (Table/Fig 1).The age distribution of the study population was concentrated in the age group between 19 to 30 yrs. The number of patients between 19-30 yrs were 13 (43.33%), between 31 to 40yrs were 4 patients (13.33%), between 41 to 50 yrs were 5 patients (16.66%), between 51 to 65 yrs were 8 patients (26.66%). This has been summarized in (Table/Fig 2). The etiology for the required skin graft included Traumatic injuries in 10 patients ( 33.33%), Cellulitis in 9 patients (30%), Burns/Scalds in 5 patients (16.66%), Carbuncle in single patient(3.33%), Fourniers gangrene in one patient (3.33%), Wound gape in one patient (3.33%), Necrotizing fasciitis in 2 patients (6.66%) and Tumour excision in one patient (3.33%). These have been summarized in (Table/Fig 3).Diabetes mellitus was the most common coexisting disease in the study population i.e. in 7 patients (23.33%), followed by Hypoproteinemia in 6 patients (20%), Hypertension in 4 patients (13.33%), Anemia in 4 patients (13.33%) and none in 13 (43.33%). This is summarized in (Table/Fig 4).The number of donor areas that achieved complete (100%) epithelialization on the 12th post operative day by Paraffin gauze dressing was 7 (23.3%), whereas Hydrocolloid dressing achieved complete epithelialization in 18 donor sites (60%) (P = 0.016). Intermediate i.e. between 50 to 100% epithelialization was obtained in 21 (70%) donor areas treated with Paraffin gauze dressing, whereas in Hydrocolloid treated donor areas it was in 11 (36.7%). Poor or <50% epithelialization was seen in 2(6.7%) donor areas of the Paraffin gauze group and only 1(3.3%) donor area treated with Hydrocolloid dressing had this result. These results have been depicted in (Table/Fig 5).There was no clinical evidence of donor site infection in both the groups, as judged by surrounding erythema or purulent exudate. No difference was found between Hydrocolloid dressings and Paraffin gauze dressing in terms of exudate secretion, skin maceration, or hemorrhage from the donor site. It was also noted that the patient tolerance and ease of dressing change was much better with Hydrocolloid dressings.

Discussion

The mesh paraffin gauze dressing has for years been the primary choice of surgeons for the coverage of split-skin donor sites, given its ease of application, comfort, low risk of infection, and minimal cost (6),(7),(8),(9). It has however, been found inferior in many other important aspects: it is a painful, adherent dressing under which donor sites do not appear to heal rapidly. Measurement of epithelialization in donor sites is a difficult task. The use of contiguous sites in the same patient serves as control and even helps to eliminate some of them as done in our study here. Both sites were assessed and graded using identical methods and criteria (6).

Our study population consisted of 23 males and 7 females. The mean age of the study population was 38.5+/-14.59 yrs (40.6+/–13.22yrs for males and 31.7+/–17.86yrs for females). The age distribution of the study population was concentrated in the age group between 19 to 30 yrs. The Hydrocolloid dressings are a newer variety of moist to moist dressings which claim to be superior to the older moist to dry dressings in various parameters. But however the Hydrocolloids are more expensive than the Paraffin Gauze dressings and can lead to exudate accumulation under the dressing. In our study the availability of Hydrocolloids was not a problem as they are used in our Hospital for treating pressure sores.

Overall wound healing, as measured by percentage of epithelialized dermis, was faster with Hydrocolloid than with Paraffin gauze dressing. The number of donor areas that achieved complete epithelialization on the 12th post operative day by Standard paraffin gauze dressing were 7 (23.3%), whereas Hydrocolloid dressing achieved complete epithelialization in 18 patients (60%) (P = 0.016). This was similar to the results obtained by the earlier studies. The faster re-epithelialization rate that has been seen with the Hydrocolloid dressing can partially be explained by its physical properties. Hydrocolloid was found to form a fibrin layer between the dressing and the wound, creating a physical barrier that retains cytokines, particularly intrinsic growth factors (10),(11),[12,]. Furthermore, epithelial cell proliferation and migration are believed to be optimal in a moist environment (13). This concept seems to be supported by evidence from many skin-graft donor site studies which have shown faster re-epithelialization rates when moist-environment dressings are compared with the traditional dry dressing (10),(12),(13),[14 ]. The Hydrocolloid dressing forms a highly absorbent gel that facilitates its removal, thereby reducing trauma during dressing changes.

Excellent results were reported by Vloemans et al. It also helps in keeping the wound moist, inducing a favorable environment that facilitates recruitment of vital host defenses and necessary cell population for better wound healing (14), (15). There was also no difference in wound secretion, bleeding, or wound infection between the 2 dressings. Incidence of infection also was similar in both the groups. Although pain assessment was not an objective in this study, it was noted that the patients tolerated the Hydrocolloid dressings muchbetter than the Paraffin gauze dressings and they were also noted to be much easier to remove or change in contrast to the Paraffin gauze dressings which became adherent to the wound surface and caused discomfort and pain during removal. And many studies done in this regard favour Hydrocolloid as a less painful donor site dressing (6).

The cost of treatment was higher in the Hydrocolloid group as compared to the Paraffin gauze group. However it was noted that the Paraffin gauze group needed more analgesics and early mobilization was affected. Although cost effectiveness was not assessed in this study earlier studies done in this regard concluded that, the more rapid healing, less pain, and less scarring found with Hydrocolloid treatment reduces postoperative morbidity, which in turn affects the global cost-effectiveness (6). Based on the results above study it can be concluded that Hydrocolloid dressings achieve faster epithelialization of the donor site and are hence preferable to the paraffin gauze dressings.

Conclusion

Hydrocolloid dressings are superior to Standard meshed Paraffin gauze dressings in the treatment of Split thickness skin graft donor areas.

References

1.
Santamaria AB, Oroz J, Pelay MI, Castro JA, Escudero F. Hydrocolloid dressings in small and medium sized skin graft donor sites? Annals of the MBC vol. 5, no. 2, June 1992,
2.
Freshwater MF, Chi Tsung Su, Hoopes JE. A Comparison of Polyurethane Foam Dressing and Fine Mesh Gauze in The Healing of Donor Sites. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1976.
3.
Ponten B, Nordgaard JO. The Use of Collagen Film as a Dressing for Donor Areas in split skin grafting. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1976; 10: 237-40.
4.
Porter JM. A comparative investigation of Re epithelialization of split skin graft donor areas after application of hydrocolloid and alginate dressings. British J Plastic Surgery 1991;44:333-37
5.
Weber RS, Hankins P, Limitone E, et al. Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Site Management. A Randomised Prospective Trial Comparing a Hydrophilic Polyurethane Absorbent Foam Dressing with petroleum gauze Dressing. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121(10): 1145-49.
6.
Barnea Y, Amir A, Leshem D, Zaretski A, Weiss J, Shafir R. Clinical comparative study of aquacel and paraffin gauze dressing for splitskin donor site treatment. Ann Plast Surg. 2004 Aug;53(2):132-36.
7.
Cadier MA, Clarke JA. Dermasorb versus Jelonet in patients with burns skin graft donor sites. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1996;17:246–51
8.
Innes ME, Umraw N, Fish JS, et al. The use of silver coated dressings on donor site wounds: a prospective, controlled matched pair study. Burns. 2001;27:621–27
9.
Rakel BA, Bermel MA, Abbott LI, et al. Split-thickness skin graft donor site care: a quantitative synthesis of the research. Appl Nurs Res. 1998;11:174–82
10.
Genecov DG, Schneider AM, Morykwas MJ, et al. A controlled subatmospheric pressure dressing increases the rate of skin graft donor site reepithelialization. Ann Plast Surg. 1998;40:219–25
11.
Kilinc H, Sensoz O, Ozdemir R, et al. Which dressing for split-thickness skin graft donor sites? Ann Plast Surg. 2001;46:409–14
12.
Vloemans AF, Soesman AM, Kreis RW, et al. A newly developed hydrofibre dressing in the treatment of partial-thickness burns. Burns. 2001;27:167–73
13.
Ono I, Gunji H, Zhang JZ, et al. Studies on cytokines related to wound healing in donor site wound fluid. J Dermatol Sci. 1995;10:241–45
14.
Innes ME, Umraw N, Fish JS, et al. The use of silver coated dressings on donor site wounds: a prospective, controlled matched pair study. Burns. 2001; 27:621–27.
15.
Ono I, Gunji H, Zhang JZ, et al. Studies on cytokines related to wound healing in donor site wound fluid. J Dermatol Sci. 1995; 10:241–45.

DOI and Others

ID: JCDR/2012/3340.3638.3709:1873

FINANCIAL OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS: NONE.

Date of Submission: Sep 22, 2011
Date of Peer Review: Nov 03, 2011
Date of Acceptance: Dec 23, 2011
Date of Publishing: Feb 15, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com