الفهرس 
Aim of the studyOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 103 |  |  |
| | | from | 103 | | |
Abstract
Split-thickness skin grafts remain the standard of care for definitive wound closure. The longer the raw areas remain unhealed, the greater the likelihood of complication as infection and sepsis with increased morbidity and mortality. Despite Split Thickness Skin Graft (STSG) being an important modality for wound closure, it has many disadvantages, as the donor site becomes a second, often painful wound, which may take more time to heal than the graft site itself. It holds the risk of infection, itching, burning sensation, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation and scarring. In addition to limited donor site availability in major burns (CI Otene et al 2011).
Many studies innovate many new techniques to cover skin defects. One of the most interesting techniques is using a Split Thickness Dermal graft (STDG). (Nuutila K et al 2017)
In our study we use STDG and we compare it to STSG in covering raw areas in the same individuals. We conducted it on 38 patients: 21 males & 17 females. Their age ranges from 5-to 50 years with mean age 28+ 132. 26 cases of the raw area were in the lower limb, while 10 cases at the upper limb, and only 2 cases were in trunk. Follow-up of both donor and recipient sites was done. The Split Thickness skin graft (STSG) take was complete in 32/38 cases, partially taken in 5/38 & rejected in 1/38. While Split Dermal Graft Take was complete in 24/38 patients, partially taken in 9/38 & rejected in 5/38. The patient Observer Assessment Scar Scale (POSAS) was used to compare scar of donor site of both grafts.
Our study revealed the efficacy of SDSG in covering small raw areas with the advantage of rapid healing of donor site with a concealed scar, better color, pliability and texture with decreased pain and itching post-operative in addition to less incidence of contracture of STDG recipient site as documented by patient and observer.
For most rejected SDSG cases, infection in addition to the larger raw area was the main cause.
There was a relation between the size of raw area and the graft failure. It was noticeable that STDG rejection occurs mainly in large raw areas especially if it is meshed graft.
The main finding of this study is STDG could be alternative to STSG in covering small raw areas with concealed donor site scar.