A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
ABSTRACT Background and Aims This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluate the efficacy of moist versus non‐moist dressings for split‐thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites, focusing on time to healing, pain management, and adverse events to guide clinical practice. Methods A comprehensive lite...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Health Science Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.70315 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832583144114487296 |
|---|---|
| author | Chun‐Yee Ho Hsuan‐Yu Chou Szu‐Han Wang Ching‐Yu Lan Victor Bong‐Hang Shyu Chih‐Hao Chen Chia‐Hsuan Tsai |
| author_facet | Chun‐Yee Ho Hsuan‐Yu Chou Szu‐Han Wang Ching‐Yu Lan Victor Bong‐Hang Shyu Chih‐Hao Chen Chia‐Hsuan Tsai |
| author_sort | Chun‐Yee Ho |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT Background and Aims This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluate the efficacy of moist versus non‐moist dressings for split‐thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites, focusing on time to healing, pain management, and adverse events to guide clinical practice. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across databases including Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus up to November 28, 2023. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for quality using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool, with meta‐analysis performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects model. Results Out of 464 identified studies, 16 RCTs involving 1129 patients were included. Moist dressings such as Tegaderm, Hydrocolloid, Alginate, polyurethane, and hydrofiber showed a faster mean time to healing compared to non‐moist dressings like Mepitel and paraffin‐impregnated gauze. Hydrocolloid dressings were particularly effective in accelerating wound healing. Additionally, moist dressings were associated with lower pain levels during dressing removal and had comparable rates of adverse events. Conclusion The evidence strongly supports the use of moist dressings, particularly Hydrocolloid, for STSG donor site coverage. These dressings promote faster healing and superior pain management. The study highlights the need for further research to address existing limitations and refine recommendations for optimal wound care interventions. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-275f858c645a447dac7f557a86077f54 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2398-8835 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Health Science Reports |
| spelling | doaj-art-275f858c645a447dac7f557a86077f542025-01-29T03:42:39ZengWileyHealth Science Reports2398-88352025-01-0181n/an/a10.1002/hsr2.70315A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐AnalysisChun‐Yee Ho0Hsuan‐Yu Chou1Szu‐Han Wang2Ching‐Yu Lan3Victor Bong‐Hang Shyu4Chih‐Hao Chen5Chia‐Hsuan Tsai6Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Keelung Taiwan(ROC)Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Keelung Taiwan(ROC)Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Keelung Taiwan(ROC)Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Keelung Taiwan(ROC)Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Keelung Taiwan(ROC)Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Keelung Taiwan(ROC)Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Keelung Taiwan(ROC)ABSTRACT Background and Aims This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluate the efficacy of moist versus non‐moist dressings for split‐thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites, focusing on time to healing, pain management, and adverse events to guide clinical practice. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across databases including Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus up to November 28, 2023. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for quality using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool, with meta‐analysis performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects model. Results Out of 464 identified studies, 16 RCTs involving 1129 patients were included. Moist dressings such as Tegaderm, Hydrocolloid, Alginate, polyurethane, and hydrofiber showed a faster mean time to healing compared to non‐moist dressings like Mepitel and paraffin‐impregnated gauze. Hydrocolloid dressings were particularly effective in accelerating wound healing. Additionally, moist dressings were associated with lower pain levels during dressing removal and had comparable rates of adverse events. Conclusion The evidence strongly supports the use of moist dressings, particularly Hydrocolloid, for STSG donor site coverage. These dressings promote faster healing and superior pain management. The study highlights the need for further research to address existing limitations and refine recommendations for optimal wound care interventions.https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.70315meta‐analysismoist dressingsnon‐moist dressingspain managementsplit‐thickness skin graftsystematic review |
| spellingShingle | Chun‐Yee Ho Hsuan‐Yu Chou Szu‐Han Wang Ching‐Yu Lan Victor Bong‐Hang Shyu Chih‐Hao Chen Chia‐Hsuan Tsai A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Health Science Reports meta‐analysis moist dressings non‐moist dressings pain management split‐thickness skin graft systematic review |
| title | A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
| title_full | A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
| title_fullStr | A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
| title_short | A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non‐Moist Dressings for Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
| title_sort | comprehensive analysis of moist versus non moist dressings for split thickness skin graft donor sites a systematic review and meta analysis |
| topic | meta‐analysis moist dressings non‐moist dressings pain management split‐thickness skin graft systematic review |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.70315 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT chunyeeho acomprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hsuanyuchou acomprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT szuhanwang acomprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chingyulan acomprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT victorbonghangshyu acomprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chihhaochen acomprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chiahsuantsai acomprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chunyeeho comprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hsuanyuchou comprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT szuhanwang comprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chingyulan comprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT victorbonghangshyu comprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chihhaochen comprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chiahsuantsai comprehensiveanalysisofmoistversusnonmoistdressingsforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsitesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |