Observational study on the therapeutic effects of two different negative pressure drainage devices on skin graft donor sites.

Abstract

<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a retrospective analysis of patients who received treatment with two types of negative pressure materials for intermediate-thickness skin graft donor sites, comparing the clinical efficacy and exploring potential mechanisms.<h4>Methods</h4>According to the case inclusion criteria, a total of 55 patients hospitalized for surgery requiring autologous skin grafting between 2023 and 2024 were selected. Among them, 20 patients were treated with VAC (Group A), 20 with VSD (Group B), and another 15 patients (Group C) did not receive negative pressure device therapy; instead, their wounds were covered with sterile fine-mesh Vaseline gauze postoperatively, followed by sterile gauze and regular dressing changes. Data recorded included: drainage volume per square centimeter within the first 3 postoperative days for Groups A and B; occlusion of the external drainage tube; presence of active bleeding; skin itching and blisters in the film and negative pressure material coverage area; VAS scores of the donor sites on the first 3 postoperative days and at the time of negative pressure dressing removal for all three groups (A, B, C); and the total complete healing time. Original data were recorded.<h4>Results</h4>No cases of infection or active bleeding occurred before complete epithelialization healing in any of the three groups (A, B, C); 14 cases of occlusion occurred in the external drainage tubes of the VSD group, all of which were cleared by flushing with sterile water for injection within 3 h of occlusion; a small number of cases in both Groups A and B experienced varying degrees of blisters and itching; the mean time to complete epithelialization was shorter in the negative pressure groups compared to Group C (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between Groups A and B (p > 0.05); the drainage volume per square centimeter in the first 3 postoperative days showed no significant difference between the negative pressure groups (p > 0.05); regarding VAS scores for the donor sites in the first 3 days, the negative pressure groups showed significant differences on days 1 and 2 (p < 0.05), but no significant difference on day 3. The VAS scores of both Groups A and B were statistically significantly different from Group C (p < 0.05).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Both VAC (polyurethane) and VSD (polyvinyl alcohol) negative pressure drainage devices can shorten the healing time window for intermediate-thickness skin graft donor sites; within the limitations of this retrospective study, patients in the VAC group tolerated and cooperated better during the treatment of the donor site. These findings require validation in prospective randomized controlled trials.