• José María García-Sánchez, Vicente Mirabet Lis, Alejandro Ruiz-Valls, Aranzazu Pérez-Plaza, Pilar Sepúlveda Sanchis, and María Dolores Pérez-Del-Caz.
• Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Burns, La Fe Hospital, Valencia, Spain.
• Burns. 2022 Nov 1; 48 (7): 166216701662-1670.

IntroductionManagement of donor site morbidity in the setting of split thickness skin graft (STSG) is of crucial importance with no superior wound dressing described to date and the growing need of decreasing epithelializing time. The purpose of the study was to compare the standard of care using a hydrocolloid dressing to platelet rich plasma (PRP) and plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) in order to determine its therapeutic potential in this setting.MethodsA randomized clinical trial was conducted in which each patient served as its own control. PRGF was obtained by means of freeze-thaw out of the PRP from the subject of the study. Patients from the study had three donor sites and each donor site received either to PRP, PRGF or the standard of care, hydrocolloid. The main variable was time to epithelialization, and secondary variables subject to study were pain, quality of the scar, complications and cost.Results20 patients were recruited with a total number of 60 donor sites to study. On the 8th post-operative day 55% and 45% of the sites treated with PRP and PRGF, respectively, complete epithelialization was observed as compared to 20% of the sites treated with hydrocolloid, statistical significance was achieved between the latter two (p = 0.036). The areas treated with PRP and PRGF received inferior values on the visual analog scale on post-op day 5 and 8 compared to hydrocolloid. Values on wound healing metrics were lower in the PRP when compared to hydrocolloid. No adverse effects were recorded.ConclusionDonor site of STSG treated with PRP in the setting of the burn patient decreased time to epithelialization. In our study a better pain control and in scar quality was observed in both, the PRP and PRGF group.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…