Short- and long-term efficacy of negative-pressure wound therapy in split-thickness skin grafts: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Graft fixation is essential for the successful survival of skin grafts. Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can be utilized for fixing a skin graft, ensuring adhesion of the graft with continuous and uniform pressure. However, the reported short- and long-term efficacy of NPWT in split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) is inconsistent, with few studies on the long-term efficacy (scar quality). To clarify the appropriate methods of skin graft fixation, we conducted a single-center retrospective study on the shortand long-term effects of skin grafting using different fixation methods. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent STSG from December 2010 to June 2019. The patients were divided into two groups based on the skin graft-fixing method: an NPWT group and a conventional mechanical fixation group. Medical data including age, sex, underlying diseases, wound etiology, recipient site, surgical methods, surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and follow-up data (Vancouver Scar Scale score and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale score) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 392 cases were ultimately included in the analysis. Among them, 218 cases were fixed with NPWT for skin grafting and 174 with conventional mechanical fixation. No significant differences in baseline data were noted between the two groups. The total graft survival rate in the NPWT group was higher than that in the conventional mechanical fixation group (86.7% vs. 74.1%, P=0.002). Moreover, the infection rate in the NPWT group was lower than that in the conventional mechanical fixation group (5.5% vs. 13.2%, P=0.008). In terms of scar quality, no significant difference was observed, except for in the hand. Overall, the scar surface regularity was better in the NPWT group than in the control group. (P=0.019 for Patient Scar Assessment Scale, P=0.025 for Observer Scar Assessment Scale). CONCLUSIONS: NPWT is an effective approach for fixing skin grafts. Compared with conventional mechanical fixation, NPWT can significantly improve the survival rate and reduce the infection rate of STSG. In the long-term, NPWT can also improve scar surface regularity in the hand, with an esthetic effect that is more satisfactory to clinicians and patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".