The vacuum assisted closure device: A method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival

Lynette A. Scherer, Stephen A Shiver, Michael Chang, J. Wayne Meredith, John T. Owings

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

228 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hypothesis: Use of the vacuum assisted closure device (VAC) for securing split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) is associated with improved wound outcomes compared with bolster dressings. Design: Consecutive case series. Patients and Setting: Consecutive patients at a level I trauma center requiring STSG due to traumatic or thermal tissue loss during an 18-month period. Main Outcome Measure: Repeated skin grafting due to failure of the initial graft. Secondary outcome measures included dressing-associated complications, percentage of graft take, and length of hospital stay. Results: Sixty-one patients underwent STSG placement. Indications for STSG were burn injury (n=32), soft tissue loss (n=27), and fasciotomy-site coverage (n=2). Patients were treated with the VAC (n=34) or the bolster dressing (n=27). The VAC group required significantly fewer repeated STSGs (1 [3%] vs 5 [19%]; P=.04). Two additional graft failures occurred in the no-VAC group, but repeated STSGs were refused by these patients. No difference was seen between the groups in age, percentage of graft take, or hospital length of stay. The no-VAC group had significantly larger grafts (mean ± SD, 984 ± 996 vs 386 ± 573 cm 2; P=.006). The patients requiring repeated STSGs (n=6) did not have significantly larger grafts than those not requiring repeated STSGs (mean ± SD, 617 ± 717 vs 658 ± 857 cm 2; P=.62). No dressing-associated complications occurred in the VAC group. Conclusions: The VAC provides a safe and effective method for securing STSGs and is associated with improved graft survival as measured by a reduction in number of repeated STSGs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)930-934
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume137
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 17 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Graft Survival
Transplants
Equipment and Supplies
Skin
Bandages
Length of Stay
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Skin Transplantation
Trauma Centers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Scherer, L. A., Shiver, S. A., Chang, M., Wayne Meredith, J., & Owings, J. T. (2002). The vacuum assisted closure device: A method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival. Archives of Surgery, 137(8), 930-934.

The vacuum assisted closure device : A method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival. / Scherer, Lynette A.; Shiver, Stephen A; Chang, Michael; Wayne Meredith, J.; Owings, John T.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 137, No. 8, 17.08.2002, p. 930-934.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Scherer, LA, Shiver, SA, Chang, M, Wayne Meredith, J & Owings, JT 2002, 'The vacuum assisted closure device: A method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival', Archives of Surgery, vol. 137, no. 8, pp. 930-934.
Scherer, Lynette A. ; Shiver, Stephen A ; Chang, Michael ; Wayne Meredith, J. ; Owings, John T. / The vacuum assisted closure device : A method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival. In: Archives of Surgery. 2002 ; Vol. 137, No. 8. pp. 930-934.
@article{da6d4e79764a4312864de71262fbad26,
title = "The vacuum assisted closure device: A method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival",
abstract = "Hypothesis: Use of the vacuum assisted closure device (VAC) for securing split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) is associated with improved wound outcomes compared with bolster dressings. Design: Consecutive case series. Patients and Setting: Consecutive patients at a level I trauma center requiring STSG due to traumatic or thermal tissue loss during an 18-month period. Main Outcome Measure: Repeated skin grafting due to failure of the initial graft. Secondary outcome measures included dressing-associated complications, percentage of graft take, and length of hospital stay. Results: Sixty-one patients underwent STSG placement. Indications for STSG were burn injury (n=32), soft tissue loss (n=27), and fasciotomy-site coverage (n=2). Patients were treated with the VAC (n=34) or the bolster dressing (n=27). The VAC group required significantly fewer repeated STSGs (1 [3{\%}] vs 5 [19{\%}]; P=.04). Two additional graft failures occurred in the no-VAC group, but repeated STSGs were refused by these patients. No difference was seen between the groups in age, percentage of graft take, or hospital length of stay. The no-VAC group had significantly larger grafts (mean ± SD, 984 ± 996 vs 386 ± 573 cm 2; P=.006). The patients requiring repeated STSGs (n=6) did not have significantly larger grafts than those not requiring repeated STSGs (mean ± SD, 617 ± 717 vs 658 ± 857 cm 2; P=.62). No dressing-associated complications occurred in the VAC group. Conclusions: The VAC provides a safe and effective method for securing STSGs and is associated with improved graft survival as measured by a reduction in number of repeated STSGs.",
author = "Scherer, {Lynette A.} and Shiver, {Stephen A} and Michael Chang and {Wayne Meredith}, J. and Owings, {John T.}",
year = "2002",
month = "8",
day = "17",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "137",
pages = "930--934",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The vacuum assisted closure device

T2 - A method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival

AU - Scherer, Lynette A.

AU - Shiver, Stephen A

AU - Chang, Michael

AU - Wayne Meredith, J.

AU - Owings, John T.

PY - 2002/8/17

Y1 - 2002/8/17

N2 - Hypothesis: Use of the vacuum assisted closure device (VAC) for securing split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) is associated with improved wound outcomes compared with bolster dressings. Design: Consecutive case series. Patients and Setting: Consecutive patients at a level I trauma center requiring STSG due to traumatic or thermal tissue loss during an 18-month period. Main Outcome Measure: Repeated skin grafting due to failure of the initial graft. Secondary outcome measures included dressing-associated complications, percentage of graft take, and length of hospital stay. Results: Sixty-one patients underwent STSG placement. Indications for STSG were burn injury (n=32), soft tissue loss (n=27), and fasciotomy-site coverage (n=2). Patients were treated with the VAC (n=34) or the bolster dressing (n=27). The VAC group required significantly fewer repeated STSGs (1 [3%] vs 5 [19%]; P=.04). Two additional graft failures occurred in the no-VAC group, but repeated STSGs were refused by these patients. No difference was seen between the groups in age, percentage of graft take, or hospital length of stay. The no-VAC group had significantly larger grafts (mean ± SD, 984 ± 996 vs 386 ± 573 cm 2; P=.006). The patients requiring repeated STSGs (n=6) did not have significantly larger grafts than those not requiring repeated STSGs (mean ± SD, 617 ± 717 vs 658 ± 857 cm 2; P=.62). No dressing-associated complications occurred in the VAC group. Conclusions: The VAC provides a safe and effective method for securing STSGs and is associated with improved graft survival as measured by a reduction in number of repeated STSGs.

AB - Hypothesis: Use of the vacuum assisted closure device (VAC) for securing split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) is associated with improved wound outcomes compared with bolster dressings. Design: Consecutive case series. Patients and Setting: Consecutive patients at a level I trauma center requiring STSG due to traumatic or thermal tissue loss during an 18-month period. Main Outcome Measure: Repeated skin grafting due to failure of the initial graft. Secondary outcome measures included dressing-associated complications, percentage of graft take, and length of hospital stay. Results: Sixty-one patients underwent STSG placement. Indications for STSG were burn injury (n=32), soft tissue loss (n=27), and fasciotomy-site coverage (n=2). Patients were treated with the VAC (n=34) or the bolster dressing (n=27). The VAC group required significantly fewer repeated STSGs (1 [3%] vs 5 [19%]; P=.04). Two additional graft failures occurred in the no-VAC group, but repeated STSGs were refused by these patients. No difference was seen between the groups in age, percentage of graft take, or hospital length of stay. The no-VAC group had significantly larger grafts (mean ± SD, 984 ± 996 vs 386 ± 573 cm 2; P=.006). The patients requiring repeated STSGs (n=6) did not have significantly larger grafts than those not requiring repeated STSGs (mean ± SD, 617 ± 717 vs 658 ± 857 cm 2; P=.62). No dressing-associated complications occurred in the VAC group. Conclusions: The VAC provides a safe and effective method for securing STSGs and is associated with improved graft survival as measured by a reduction in number of repeated STSGs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036324167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036324167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12146992

AN - SCOPUS:0036324167

VL - 137

SP - 930

EP - 934

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 8

ER -