Systematic literature review of topical local anaesthesia or analgesia to donor site wounds

BACKGROUND

Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There is no systematic review of their effectiveness in providing post-harvest analgesia, or of the possible toxic effects of systemic absorption. This study is designed to address the question of which agent, if any, is favoured over the others and whether there are any safety data regarding their use.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials of topical agents applied to STSG DSWs, with a view to providing analgesia. Studies identified via search of Cochrane and EBSCO databases. No restrictions on language or publication year. Primary outcomes: pain at the time of (awake) STSG, and post-harvest pain (up to first dressing change). Secondary outcome was serum medication levels relative to published data on toxic doses. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool utilised in assessment of included studies. At least 2 reviewers screened and reviewed included studies. A narrative review is presented.

RESULTS

There were 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality and patient numbers were low. Topical eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine pre-harvest affords good local anaesthesia in awake STSG harvesting. Topical bupivacaine (5 studies) or lidocaine (1 study) gave significantly better post-harvest anaesthesia/analgesia than placebo. Topical morphine performs no better than placebo. Topical local anaesthetic agents at reported doses were all well below toxic serum levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical local anaesthetics (lidocaine or bupivacaine) provide good analgesia, both during and after STSG harvest, at well below toxic serum levels, but there are no good data determining the best local anaesthetic agent to use. There is no evidence morphine performs better than placebo.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of autologous skin cell suspensions for re-epithelialization of acute partial thickness burn injuries and split-thickness skin graft donor sites

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of autologous skin cell suspensions (ASCS) on the re-epithelialization of partial thickness burn injuries and skin graft donor site wounds.

METHODS

Four databases (EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Web of Science), grey literature and select journal hand-searching identified studies from 1975 - 2020. Randomized trials evaluating partial thickness burn management with non-cultured ASCS compared to any other intervention were included. Time to re-epithelialization (TTRE) was the primary outcome. Three independent researchers completed screening, data extraction and certainty of evidence assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Five trials (n = 347) reported on adults (2 trials) and children (1 trial) with burn wounds, and adults with donor site wounds (2 trials). The effect of ASCS compared to control on TTRE in adult burn wounds was not estimable. TTRE was shorter in pediatric burn wounds (SMD -1.75 [95% CI: -3.45 to -0.05]) and adult donor site wounds (SMD-5.71 [95% CI: -10.61 to-0.81]) treated with ASCS. The certainty of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

Compared to standard care, ACSC may reduce pediatric partial thickness burn wound and adult split-thickness skin graft donor site TTRE.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019133171.

Use of oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC)/collagen/silver-ORC dressings to help manage skin graft donor site wounds

Harvesting donor site explants for split-thickness skin grafting creates an iatrogenic wound that presents additional challenges to clinicians due to morbidities such as persistent bleeding, pain, infection, and delayed epithelialization. Although there have been several randomized controlled trials to compare wound dressing effectiveness, there is still a lack of standardization for donor site wound dressings.

A retrospective comparison of 59 patients that underwent split-thickness skin graft reconstructions between January 2017 and September 2018 was performed. Donor sites of Group 1 patients (n = 29) were treated with a transparent film dressing and transitioned to petrolatum gauze dressings if exudate management became problematic; Group 2 patients (n = 30) were treated with oxidized regenerated cellulose/collagen/silver-oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC/C/Ag-ORC) dressings. Evaluations of time to epithelialization, number of dressings required, signs of inflammation, and objective pain were compared between groups.

Group 1 was comprised of 18 female and 11 male patients, whereas Group 2 was comprised of 14 females and 16 males. There were no significant differences between groups when comparing age, sex, comorbidities, or donor site size (area or depth). Patients in Group 2 had a significantly shorter time to complete re-epithelialization (P < .0001), fewer dressing changes (P < .0001), and less objective pain as measured by the need for opioid pain mediation (P < .0001) when compared to Group 1. The percentage of patients with signs of inflammation was also lower for Group 2, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .0797).

Although prospective, controlled studies are still needed, data from this study suggest that ORC/C/Ag-ORC dressings could become a more effective alternative for the management of donor site wounds, especially in patients with known risk factors for wound healing.

Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts

BACKGROUND

This is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children's Burn centre (PLCBC), the largest paediatric burns centre in Queensland, Australia. Our objective was to find the best performing dressing, following on from previous trials designed to rationalise dressings for the burn wound itself.

METHODS

All children for STSG, with thigh donor sites, were considered for enrolment in the trial. Primary outcome measures were days to re-epithelialisation, and pain. Secondary measures were cost, itch, and scarring at 3 and 6 months. Patients and parents were blinded to group assignment. Blinding of assessors was possible with the dressing in situ, with partial blinding following first dressing change. Blinded photographic assessments of re-epithelialisation were used. Scar assessment was blinded. Covariates for analysis were sex, age, and graft thickness (as measured from a central biopsy).

RESULTS

There were 101 patients randomised to the Algisite™ M (33), Cuticerin™ (32), and Sorbact® (36) arms between April 2015 and July 2016. All were analysed for time to re-epithelialisation. Pain scores were not available for all time points in all patients. There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding pain, or time to re-epithelialisation. There were no significant differences for the secondary outcomes of itch, scarring, or cost. Regression analyses demonstrated faster re-epithelialisation in younger patients and decreased donor site scarring at 3 and 6 months with thinner STSG. There were no adverse effects noted.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no data supporting a preference for one trial dressing over the others, in donor site wounds (DSW) in children. Thinner skin grafts lead to less donor site scarring in children. Younger patients have faster donor site wound healing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000380695).Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QRCH/36).University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (#2014000447).