Polylactic Acid Membrane Improves Outcome of Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Prospective, Comparative, Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polyurethane film dressings are commonly applied for coverage of split-thickness skin graft donor sites, although previous studies have suggested reduced morbidity using a polylactic acid membrane. To further investigate the optimal treatment approach, the authors compared outcomes of donor sites in patients receiving either polylactic acid membrane or polyurethane film. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial allocated patients requiring split-thickness skin grafting to receive either polylactic acid membrane or polyurethane film at the donor site. The primary endpoint was difference in donor-site scar appearance between groups 3 months postoperatively, using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Secondary endpoints included pain, number of and time required for wound dressing changes, and costs related to the wound dressing. RESULTS: Thirty patients were allocated to each group. The median Vancouver Scar Scale score was lower for patients receiving polylactic acid membrane [polyurethane film, 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 4); polylactic acid membrane, 2 (interquartile range, 1 to 3); p = 0.049]. Pain during change of wound dressing (polyurethane film, 2.0 ± 0.2; polylactic acid membrane, 0.5 ± 0.2; p < 0.001) and mobilization (polyurethane film, 0.8 ± 0.2; polylactic acid membrane, 0.3 ± 0.1; p = 0.032) were reduced in the polylactic acid membrane group. Patients with polylactic acid membrane required fewer dressing changes per day of hospital stay (polyurethane film, 0.44 ± 0.06; polylactic acid membrane, 0.28 ± 0.02; p = 0.015). Mean time for wound dressing changes per patient was higher in the polyurethane film group (polyurethane film, 74.50 ± 5.72 minutes; polylactic acid membrane, 21.43 ± 2.61 minutes; p < 0.001). Costs were higher in the polylactic acid membrane group (polyurethane film, €67.83 ± €5.56; polylactic acid membrane, €162.79 ± €21.76; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Polylactic acid membrane improves outcome of split-thickness skin grafting donor sites; however, higher treatment costs must be taken into consideration. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".