Comparison of outcome of early tangential excision with autografting versus interactive antimicrobial dressing in deep-partial thickness burn patients: A retrospective analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
Tissue Characterization after a New Disaggregation Method for Skin Micro-Grafts Generation
Published on: March 4, 2016
Sana Saeed1, Muhammad Sohail2, Muhammad Mustehsan Bashir2
1Department of Plastic Surgery, Jinnah Burn and Reconstructive Surgery Center, Lahore, Pakistan.
Background:
The relative effectiveness of early excision and autografting (EG) for deep-partial thickness burns needs to be updated through comparison to initial non-operative (INO) treatment using modern interactive antimicrobial (IA) dressings in a South-Asian burn patient population.
Objective:
To compare the outcome of early tangential excision and autografting (EG) to initial non-operative (INO) treatment using interactive antimicrobial dressing.
Methods:
Records of 106 adult burn survivors with predominantly deep-partial thickness thermal burns of TBSA ≤ 30 % were retrospectively reviewed (53 patients each in EG-arm and INO-arm). EG-arm patients underwent excision and autografting within 7 days. INO-arm patients, who had opted against surgical excision, received interactive antimicrobial dressing (hydrofiber with ionic silver). Outcomes measured include percentage of wound healed on days 14 and 21, days to complete wound healing, duration of hospital stay, complications (on 12 months' follow-up) and patient satisfaction scores. Patients were analyzed as treated.
Result:
Patients in each arm had similar TBSA and demographic profiles. In EG-arm patients, 15-20 % of TBSA were grafted on 5.02 ± 0.71 post-burn day. Thirty percent of EG-arm patients required a second session of grafting for the remaining burn wound, which occurred on 6.873 ± 0.34 post-burn day. On the 21st post-burn day the EG-arm, compared to the INO-arm, had a higher percentage of wound epithelization (98.60 ± 4.03, versus 76.16 ± 7.02, P < 0.01), less days to complete healing (17.60 ± 5.83, versus 40.16 ± 9.09, P < 0.01), and shorter hospital stays (19.62 ± 6.85 days, versus 35.56 ± 7.77 days, P < 0.01). Twenty-five (47 %) INO-arm patients underwent delayed grafting on post-burn day 25.42 ± 0.49. The INO-arm suffered significantly more complications, such as hypertrophic scar, dyspigmentation and functional disability (P < 0.05). EG-arm patients were more satisfied than INO-arm patients (P < 0.01).
Conclusion:
We report superior outcomes in the early tangential excision and autografting-arm as compared to the initial non-operative treatment arm. The dogma of early excision and autografting remains valid despite significant advances in wound dressing materials.
