|
|
|
Year :2024
|
Month :
July-August
|
Volume :
13
|
Issue :
4
|
Page :
SO07 - SO11
|
Surgical Outcome of Tumescent Versus Non Tumescent Technique for Harvesting Split Skin Graft: A Prospective Cohort Study
|
Correspondence Address :
Shashank Baid, K Anupama Pujar, M Kumaraswamy, Manjunath Kalapurmat,
Dr. K Anupama Pujar,
Professor, Department of General Surgery, Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bengaluru-560090, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: anupamapujar@gmail.com
|
|
Introduction: Introduction: The technique for harvesting Split-thickness Skin Grafts (STSG) varies among surgeons. To control bleeding from split-thickness skin graft donor sites, the use of several haemostatic agents has been reported. The tumescent technique involves injecting tumescent fluid into the subcutaneous fat, obtaining swelling and firmness (tumescence) of the surgical area. This creates regional anaesthesia of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, allowing painless cutaneous surgery, with adrenaline acts as a haemostatic agent.
Aim: To compare the surgical outcomes in terms of blood loss during the harvesting of STSG, postoperative pain experienced by the patient, healing of the donor site, and graft take rate with tumescent versus non tumescent techniques of STSG.
Materials and Methods: The present prospective cohort study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery, M S Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, from November 2017 to March 2019. A total of 56 patients were enrolled after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were alternately assigned into the groups of tumescent or non tumescent technique groups. Intraoperative bleeding was assessed, postoperative pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Score (VAS), and healing of the donor and recipient sites were assessed. Student’s t-test (two-tailed, independent) was used to find the significance of study parameters on a continuous scale between the two groups. The Chi-square/Fisher’s-exact test was used to assess the significance of study parameters on a categorical scale between two or more groups.
Results: The mean±Standard Deviation (SD) age of patients in the tumescent group was 48.25±12.79 years and in the non tumescent group was 52.79±12.91 years. Intraoperative bleeding ranged from 0-25% in all 28 patients in the tumescent group, while it ranged from 76-100% in all 28 patients in the control group (p-value <0.001). When the authors compared the pain on Postoperative Day (POD) 1 using VAS we observed that 32.1% of cases (n=9) had a score of 5-7 compared to 28.6% of controls (n=8). There was no significant difference in postoperative pain, and the technique used for harvesting STSG did not affect the healing of the donor site or the graft take at the recipient site.
Conclusion: The tumescent technique is a safer and better alternative to the non tumescent technique, as intraoperative bleeding is significantly lower with the former. Additionally, the tumescent technique does not affect the healing of the donor or recipient site.
|
|
|
[
FULL TEXT ] | [
 ]
|
|
|
|
|