High-valve vapor-permeable film dressing versus fine mesh gauze dressing on skin graft donor areas in diabetic patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial

A hand-targeted auxiliary personal protective equipment for intervention of fomite transmission of viruses

In COVID-19, fomite transmission has been shown to be a major route for the spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to its ability to remain on surfaces for extended durations. Although glove wearing can mitigate the risk of viral transmission especially on high touch points, it is not prevalent due to concerns on diversion of frontline medical resources, cross-contamination, social stigma, as well as discomfort and skin reactions derived from prolonged wearing. In this study, we developed FlexiPalm, a hand-targeted auxiliary personal protective equipment (PPE) against fomite transmission of viruses. FlexiPalm is a unique palmar-side hand protector designed to be skin-conforming and transparent, fabricated from medical-grade polyurethane transparent film material as a base substrate. It serves primarily as a barrier to microbial contamination like conventional gloves, but with augmented comfort and inconspicuousness to encourage a higher public adoption rate. Compared to conventional glove materials, FlexiPalm demonstrated enhanced mechanical durability and breathability, comparable hydrophobicity, and displayed a minimal adsorption of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and virus-like particles (VLP). Importantly, FlexiPalm was found to bind significantly less viral protein and VLP than artificial human skin, confirming its ability to reduce viral contamination. A pilot study involving participants completing activities of daily living showed a high level of comfort and task completion, illustrating the usability and functionality of FlexiPalm. Moreover, we have demonstrated that surface modification of FlexiPalm with microtextures enables further reduction in viral adsorption, thereby enhancing its functionality. An effective implementation of FlexiPalm will bolster PPE sustainability and lead to a paradigm shift in the global management of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases in general.

An evidence-based review of split-thickness skin graft donor site dressings

This evidence-based review aimed to identify and evaluate current existing evidence relating to the efficacy of dressing materials for spit-thickness skin graft donor site wounds in relation to promoting rapid healing and reducing patient pain. A comprehensive systematic search of the literature between 2006 and 2016 identified 35 publications that were included in the review. Based on the results of the review, it was found that moist wound-healing products have a clear advantage over non-moist products in the reduction of pain and increased healing rates. This review concluded that moist wound-healing products are more effective than non-moist wound-healing products in reducing pain and promoting healing in split-thickness skin graft donor site wounds. A recommendation based on this review is that further research examine the role of secondary dressing usage in donor site wound management, and the consideration of using more than one primary dressing product during the donor site wound-healing process should be undertaken.

Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Skin Graft Donor-site Dressings with Future Guidelines

Background:

Many types of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor-site dressings are available with little consensus from the literature on the optimal dressing type. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the most recent outcomes regarding moist and nonmoist dressings for STSG donor sites.

Methods:

A comprehensive systematic review was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to search for comparative studies evaluating different STSG donor-site dressings in adult subjects published between 2008 and 2017. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data were collected on donor-site pain, rate of epithelialization, infection rate, cosmetic appearance, and cost. Meta-analysis was performed for reported pain scores.

Results:

A total of 41 articles were included comparing 44 dressings. Selected studies included analysis of donor-site pain (36 of 41 articles), rate of epithelialization (38 of 41), infection rate (25 of 41), cosmetic appearance (20 of 41), and cost (10 of 41). Meta-analysis revealed moist dressings result in lower pain (pooled effect size = 1.44). A majority of articles (73%) reported better reepithelialization rates with moist dressings.

Conclusion:

The literature on STSG donor-site dressings has not yet identified an ideal dressing. Although moist dressings provide superior outcomes with regard to pain control and wound healing, there continues to be a lack of standardization. The increasing commercial availability and marketing of novel dressings necessitates the development of standardized research protocols to design better comparison studies and assess true efficacy.