Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery

REVIEW ARTICLE
Year
: 2020  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 191--196

Full-thickness skin graft fixation techniques: A review of the literature


Lloyd Steele1, Alistair Brown2, Fangyi Xie3,  
1 Department of Dermatology, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
2 Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, London, UK
3 Department of Dermatology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Correspondence Address:
Lloyd Steele
Department of Dermatology, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Rd, London E1 1FR.
UK

Abstract

Multiple techniques for skin graft fixation have been proposed, but the evidence underlying these techniques is unclear. This study aimed to review the literature for full-thickness graft fixation techniques. PubMed was electronically searched to identify relevant studies. The search strategy identified 91 relevant articles. These consisted of 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 10 observational cohort studies (8 retrospective, 2 prospective), and 79 descriptive studies (case series, case reports, or expert opinion articles). Both identified RCTs compared the tie-over dressing against a modified tie-over dressing. The tie-over dressing was also included in all identified observational studies, and comparisons were made against quilting/mattress suturing (4 studies, 181 grafts in total), simple pressure dressings (3 studies, 528 grafts), non-tie-over dressings non-specifically (1 study, 71 grafts), hydrocolloid dressings (1 study, 62 grafts), and double-tie over dressings (1 study, 43 grafts). No significant differences were found between fixation methods for graft take, haematoma rate, and infection rate. No studies have found a significant difference between tie-over dressings and alternative graft fixation technique, with the most evidence for simple pressure dressings and quilting/mattress suturing. However, the evidence base consists mostly of small, retrospective observational studies. This article describes the current evidence base and this should be considered when planning future reports in the field.



How to cite this article:
Steele L, Brown A, Xie F. Full-thickness skin graft fixation techniques: A review of the literature.J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2020;13:191-196


How to cite this URL:
Steele L, Brown A, Xie F. Full-thickness skin graft fixation techniques: A review of the literature. J Cutan Aesthet Surg [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 23 ];13:191-196
Available from: https://www.jcasonline.com/text.asp?2020/13/3/191/294492


Full Text



 Key messages:



There is a paucity of evidence for full-thickness skin graft (FTSG) fixation techniques.

No studies have found significant benefit for tie-over dressings compared to simpler skin graft fixation techniques such as quilting/mattress suturing (4 studies, 181 grafts in total) and simple pressure dressings (3 studies, 528 grafts).

 Introduction



For a skin graft to survive on its wound bed, adequate stabilization of the graft is imperative. The most frequently used technique for graft fixation has been the tie-over dressing, in which threads are individually tied to their opponent threads over a bolus dressing after suturing. Despite evidence suggesting that it is not needed first arising more than three decades ago,[1] the tie-over dressing is frequently reported in the contemporary literature.

Many alternative graft fixation techniques have been proposed, but there is no consensus as to which is the optimal graft fixation method. This review aimed to assess the evidence base for skin graft fixation techniques in order to help inform current practice and future studies.

 Materials and Methods



Search strategy

PubMed was electronically searched to identify relevant studies. A broad search strategy was used, with a search term of: (Graft[title/abstract] or grafts[title/abstract] or grafting[title/abstract] or FTSG[title/abstract]) AND skin[title/abstract] AND (technique[title] OR techniques[title] OR fixation[title] OR application[title] OR suture[title] OR suturing[title] OR bolster[title] OR tie-over[title/abstract] OR mattress[title/abstract] OR quilting[title/abstract] OR thermoplastic [title/abstract] or negative-pressure[title/abstract] or staple[title/abstract] or stapling[title/abstract] OR success[title] OR successful[title] OR take[title] OR octyl cyanoacrylate[title] OR adhesive[title] OR strip[title] or tape[title] or glue[title] OR aquaplast[title] OR band[title] OR rubber[title] OR hydrocellular[title]). Web of Science was used to identify further papers from the citing literature of papers included from the search (data of last electronic search 19 May 2019). Using the same search term on Embase identified no additional full texts.

Selection criteria

Abstracts and full papers were reviewed independently by two authors (LS and FX). Full-text studies were included if they reported on the effect of graft fixation method for full-thickness skin grafts. If both full-thickness and partial-thickness skin grafts were included, this was made clear in the presentation of results. Only English articles, human studies, and full-text articles were included. Studies assessing radial forearm, penile, and buccal flaps, or areolar graft fixations alone, were excluded.

Data extraction

For analytic studies, the authors recorded the study design; the graft fixation methods assessed; the number of grafts included; the site of grafts; randomization; blinding; and the outcomes for graft take, hematoma/seroma formation, and infection. For descriptive studies, the study type, technique reported, number of patients, and site of graft fixation were recorded.

 Results



The literature search identified 1619 unique abstracts. A total of 151 reports were considered: 46 were subsequently excluded because they assessed split-thickness skin grafts only,[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] and 14 abstracts could not be accessed—none of which were analytic studies.[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62] The final 91 papers studied consisted of 12 analytic studies and 79 descriptive studies (case series, case reports, or expert opinion articles).

Analytic studies

Of the included 12 analytic studies, 2 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 were observational studies [Table 1]. One RCT was not adequately powered and blinding was not consistently performed.[63] The other did not assess graft take or hematoma rate.[64] Both RCTs assessed a tie-over dressing against a modified tie-over dressing rather than an alternative graft fixation technique. As such, the relevance and reliability of these RCTs was limited.{Table 1}

Of the 10 observational studies, 8 were retrospective and 2 were prospective. Sample sizes ranged from 40 to 266 (mean 89; median 66). The most common site assessed for graft fixation was the head and neck region. All studies included the tie-over dressing as one of the comparator groups [Table 1].

Four observational studies compared the tie-over dressing to quilting/mattress suturing.[1],[65],[66],[67] These studies included 181 grafts in total, and no significant differences were found between groups for graft take, hematoma/seroma formation, and infection.

Three observational studies compared tie-over dressings to simple pressure dressings.[68],[69],[70] These studies included a total of 528 grafts and did not find any significant differences in graft take, hematoma/seroma formation, nor infection. Although it has been proposed that pressure dressings may provide less adherence at anatomically complicated sites compared to tie-over dressings, De Gado et al.[68] assessed grafts at these “high-risk areas” and found no benefit for tie-over dressings.

The remaining three studies compared the tie-over dressing against “non-tie-over dressings” (n = 71),[71] hydrocolloid dressings (n = 62),[72] and double-tie over dressings (n = 128).[73] No significant differences were found between groups.

Descriptive reports

For descriptive reports, 29 were case series and 50 were case reports/expert opinions (Table S1). These reports included some graft fixation methods that have not yet been assessed in analytic studies, including cyanoacrylate glue, negative-pressure dressings, and silicone net dressings. There was duplicity in the reporting of graft fixation techniques, especially for the tie-over dressing (or variants), which made up the bulk of reports (53.2%)—even in the contemporary literature [Table 2].{Table 2}

[SUPPORTING:1]

In most studies graft success was measured by clinical assessment of the healing graft, but there was heterogeneity in this grading. This included grading into good, moderate, and poor:[74] defining partially taken as those with >60–<100% graft take rate;[65] rating graft take as 0%–100%;[68] and separating graft take into groups, such as 0%–24%, 25%–49%, 50%–74%, and 75%–100%, with the latter group defined as complete take.[63],[69]

 Discussion



The most commonly assessed graft fixation method was the tie-over dressing technique. This was assessed in all analytic studies and made up the majority of descriptive reports. No studies have shown superiority for the tie-over dressing compared to alternative graft fixation techniques, but the evidence base is limited. There are no RCTs that have compared tie-over dressings to non-tie over techniques, and only a small number of observational studies are available.

The original purported advantage of the tie-over dressing was downward pressure, to promote revascularization and prevent hematoma and seroma formation.[75] However, it has been suggested that the downward pressure of the tie-over dressing does not exceed capillary pressure, thus not reducing complications.[76] Further criticisms of the tie-over dressing are that it is complex, prolongs operative time, often requires an assistant, and may hinder inspection and wound care in the postoperative period.

A strength of this study is that it included all methods of full-thickness graft fixation. A previous review assessed the evidence for only two fixation techniques: tie-over dressings and quilting/mattress suturing.[77] Our study is novel in reporting at least equal evidence for simple pressure dressings, which were not included in this previous review. A further strength of this study is that it defines the current evidence base for full-thickness skin graft fixation techniques. A significant factor contributing to research waste is that researchers are unaware of the available evidence,[78] leading to unnecessary duplication of existing studies. The presented body of evidence should thus be considered when future research is reported in this field.[79]

Limitations of the study are that the evidence for split-thickness skin grafts were not assessed, although these differ from full-thickness skin grafts in that they can survive in conditions with less vascularity.[75] The authors also did not analyze other parts of the study methodology that may affect reliability of results, such as number of surgeons, experience of surgeons, and number of centers. The search was also restricted to English language publications, although no relevant non-English publications were identified from the search.

To improve standards in evaluating surgical methods, the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term (IDEAL) study framework has been developed.[79] This study did not identify any of the alternative study designs suggested––such as controlled interrupted-time series studies, step-wedge design studies, and tracker trials. There was also a failure to progress evidence through the phases of the IDEAL framework, with multiple case series for tie-over dressings reported and a paucity of comparative studies.

In conclusion, the most commonly assessed skin graft fixation technique is the tie-over dressing. The current evidence base does not suggest a benefit for tie-over dressings compared to simpler fixation methods for full-thickness skin grafts, most frequently for mattress/quilting sutures and simple pressure dressings. A caveat of this is that the current evidence base is limited. Future studies are needed to ensure practice is evidence-based, and these should consider the existing evidence base to prevent duplicity and ensure future research is most informative.

Acknowledgement

We thank the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UK DCTN) and other UK DCTN group members: L Webber, S Ziaj, LF Soriano, P Jayasekera, J Ingram, and E Pynn.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Davenport M, Daly J, Harvey I, Griffiths RW The bolus tie-over “pressure” dressing in the management of full thickness skin grafts. Is it necessary? Br J Plast Surg 1988;41:28-32.
2Ker H, Al-Murrani A, Rolfe G, Martin R WOUND study: A cost-utility analysis of negative pressure wound therapy after split-skin grafting for lower limb skin cancer. J Surg Res 2019;235:308-14.
3Samal CC, Dash S, Agrawal K, Tandon R Comparative evaluation of three methods of skin graft fixation for split thickness skin graft after release of post burn contracture of the neck. Burns 2019;45:691-8.
4Pak CS, Park DH, Oh TS, Lee WJ, Jun YJ, Lee KA, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of povidone-iodine foam dressing (Betafoam), hydrocellular foam dressing (Allevyn), and petrolatum gauze for split-thickness skin graft donor site dressing. Int Wound J 2019;16:379-86.
5Kim SW, Kim JH, Kim JT, Kim YH A simple and fast dressing for skin grafts: comparison with traditional techniques. J Wound Care 2018;27:417-20.
6Nakamura Y, Fujisawa Y, Ishitsuka Y, Tanaka R, Maruyama H, Okiyama N, et al. Negative-pressure closure was superior to tie-over technique for stabilization of split-thickness skin graft in large or muscle-exposing defects: A retrospective study. J Dermatol 2018;45:1207-10.
7Yen YH, Lin CM, Hsu H, Chen YC, Chen YW, Li WY, et al. Skin graft fixation using hydrofiber (Aquacel® Extra). Ann Plast Surg 2018;80:616-21.
8Bern R, Serror K, Alvo R, Chaouat M, Mimoun M, Schmidt M, et al. Original and modified technique of tie-over dressing: method and application in burn patients. Burns 2018;44:1357-60.
9Reddy KS, Chittoria RK, Babu P, Marimuthu SK, Kumar SH, Subbarayan EK, et al. Effectiveness of fibrin glue in adherence of skin graft. J Cutan Aesthet Surgs 2017;10:72-5.
10Buller M, Lee TJ, Davis J, Wilhelmi BJ Bolstering skin grafts with a surgical scrub brush: A cost-effective solution. Eplasty 2017;17:e21.
11Mohsin M, Zargar HR, Wani AH, Zaroo MI, Baba PUF, Bashir SA, et al. Role of customised negative-pressure wound therapy in the integration of split-thickness skin grafts: A randomised control study. Indian J Plast Surgs 2017;50:43-9.
12Boccara D, De Runz A, Bekara F, Chaouat M, Mimoun M Artiss sealant®: an alternative to stapling skin grafts on the dorsal side of the hand and fingers. J Burn Care Res 2017;38:283-9.
13Han HH, Jun D, Moon SH, Kang IS, Kim MC Fixation of split-thickness skin graft using fast-clotting fibrin glue containing undiluted high-concentration thrombin or sutures: A comparison study. Springerplus 2016;5:1902.
14Isaac AL, Rose J, Armstrong DG Mechanically powered negative pressure wound therapy as a bolster for skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014;2:e103.
15Hoeller M, Schintler MV, Pfurtscheller K, Kamolz LP, Tripolt N, Trop M A retrospective analysis of securing autologous split-thickness skin grafts with negative pressure wound therapy in paediatric burn patients. Burns 2014;40:1116-20.
16Bektas CI, Kankaya Y, Ozer K, Baris R, Aslan OC, Kocer U A tie-over dressing using a silicone tube to graft deep wounds. Arch Plast Surg 2013;40:711-4.
17Chiummariello S, Del Torto G, Iera M, Arleo S, Alfano C Negative pressure dressing in split-thickness skin grafts: Experience with an alternative method. Wounds 2013;25:324-7.
18Sakamoto Y, Kishi K “The dendritic bonding technique”: A newly-devised technique for the fixation of mesh skin graft. J Surg Tech Case Repo 2012;4:92-3.
19Sivrioğlu N, Irkören S, Ceylan E, Sonel AM, Copçu E 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate glue for fixation of STSG in genitourinary tissue defects due to fournier gangrene: A preliminary trial. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2013;19:215-8.
20Azzopardi EA, Boyce DE, Dickson WA, Azzopardi E, Laing JH, Whitaker IS, et al. Application of topical negative pressure (vacuum-assisted closure) to split-thickness skin grafts: A structured evidence-based review. Ann Plast Surg 2013;70:23-9.
21Li TS, Choong MY, Wu HF, Chung KC Simplified negative-pressure wound therapy system for skin graft wounds. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:399e-401e.
22Neser C, Rode H A technique for securing split-thickness skin grafts in paediatric burn patients. S Afr J Surg 2010;48:102.
23Pérez-Guisado J, Gaston KL, Benítez-Goma JR, Cabrera-Sánchez E, Fidalgo-Rodríguez FT, Rioja LF, et al. Smoking and diabetes mellitus type 2 reduce skin graft take: The use of fibrin glue might restore graft take to optimal levels. Eur J Dermatol 2011;21:895-8.
24Kneilling M, Breuninger H, Schippert W, Häfner HM, Moehrle M A modified, improved, easy and fast technique for split-thickness skin grafting. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:581-4.
25Foster K, Greenhalgh D, Gamelli RL, Mozingo D, Gibran N, Neumeister M, et al; FS 4IU VH S/D Clinical Study Group. Efficacy and safety of a fibrin sealant for adherence of autologous skin grafts to burn wounds: Results of a phase 3 clinical study. J Burn Care Res 2008;29:293-303.
26Sterling JB, Skouge JW Surgical glue to secure small split-thickness skin grafts: A cost-effective and time-saving technique. Dermatol Surg 2008;34:246-7; discussion 247-8.
27Ramos RR An easy and safe method of split-thickness skin graft fixation. Burns 2007;33:1074-5.
28Emsen IM A different and safe method of split thickness skin graft fixation: Medical honey application. Burns 2007;33:782-7.
29Motomura H, Ohba N, Ohashi N, Harada T, Muraoka M, Iguchi H, et al. Improvement of the radial forearm donor site by compression with hydrocolloid dressing and adhesive sponge. Acta Otolaryngol 2006;126:204-8.
30Vidrine DM, Kaler S, Rosenthal EL A comparison of negative-pressure dressings versus bolster and splinting of the radial forearm donor site. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133:403-6.
31Moisidis E, Heath T, Boorer C, Ho K, Deva AK A prospective, blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of topical negative pressure use in skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114:917-22.
32Davey RB, Sparnon AL, Lodge M Technique of split skin graft fixation using hypafix: A 15-year review. ANZ J Surg 2003;73:958-62.
33Avery C, Pereira J, Moody A, Gargiulo M, Whitworth I Negative pressure wound dressing of the radial forearm donor site. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surgs 2000;29:198-200.
34Bayat A, Kelly EJ, Dunn KW Split skin grafting fixation for multiple small burn wound areas: A dual technique using tissue glue and staples. Br J Plast Surg 2000;53:172.
35Tzarnas CD Simple sutureless skin graft fixation. Am Surg 1999;65:86-7.
36Görgü M, Erdoğan B, Aköz T, Kargi E, Deren O, Aslan G Silicone gel sheeting for stabilization of skin grafts. Dermatol Surg 1998;24:1073-6.
37Ghosh SJ, Kumar K, Gilbert PM Opsite spray: Its use for fixation of meshed skin grafts. Simple and low tech. Burns 1997;23:601-3.
38O’Broin ES, O’Donnell M, O’Donovan D, Tiernan E, Lawlor DL, Eadie PA Absorbable skin graft staples: A clinical trial using graftac-X. Br J Plast Surg 1996;49:485-7.
39Salins PC, Nagnur DV Fixation of skin grafts to the cheek: The sandwich technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:1034-5.
40Zaki I, Scerri L, Millard L Split skin grafting on severely damaged skin: A technique using absorbable tissue adhesive. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1994;20:827-9.
41Vloemans AF, Kreis RW Fixation of skin grafts with a new silicone rubber dressing (Mepitel). Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1994;28:75-6.
42Westerband A, Fratianne RB Stapled tie-over stent: A simplified technique for pressure dressings on newly applied split-thickness skin grafts. J Burn Care Rehabil 1993;14:463-5.
43Zinman H, Bickel A A simple, rapid technique for skin grafting using an adhesive transparent dressing. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;82:363.
44Branfman GS, Cassel JM A simple method for securing a bolster in position over a split-thickness skin graft. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81:136-7.
45Whitaker DC, Grande DJ, Koranda FC, Knabel MR Rapid application of split-thickness skin grafts. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1982;8:499-504.
46Harris D A new technique of skin grafting using Steri-Greffe and a self-adhering foam pad. Br J Plast Surg 1981;34:181-5.
47Bromberg BE, Song IC, Koehnlein E, Mohn MP Nonsuture fixation of split-thickness skin grafts. Surgery 1964;55:846-53.
48Matiasek J, Djedovic G, Unger L, Beck H, Mattesich M, Pierer G, et al. Outcomes for split-thickness skin transplantation in high-risk patients using octenidine. J Wound Care 2015;24:S8, S10-2.
49Körber A, Franckson T, Grabbe S, Dissemond J Vacuum assisted closure device improves the take of mesh grafts in chronic leg ulcer patients. Dermatology 2008;216:250-6.
50Blackburn JH 2nd, Boemi L, Hall WW, Jeffords K, Hauck RM, Banducci DR, et al. Negative-pressure dressings as a bolster for skin grafts. Ann Plast Surg 1998;40:453-7.
51Dean M, Nicholls M, Wedderburn C Benefits of adjuvant fibrin glue in skin grafting. Med J Aust 1994;160:526-7.
52Boyd JB, Carlisle IR, Thomson HG, Zuker RM A rapid and effective method of skin graft stabilization in burned children. Ann Plast Surg 1982;9:400-1.
53Shannon GM, Saunders DH Simple pressure bandage technique for free skin grafts. Am J Ophthalmol 1977;84:121-3.
54Matsumoto T, De Laurentis DA, Morello DC Use of tissue adhesive spray in skin grafting. Int Surg 1972;57:978-9.
55Markison RE, Colville J Adhesive foam technique for rapid, simple skin grafting. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983;157:277-8.
56Sawada Y, Yotsuyanagi T, Ara M, Sone K Experiences using silicone gel tie-over dressings following skin grafting. Burns 1990;16:353-7.
57Shively RE, Northington JW, Williamson GB, Gum RA. A simple skin graft dressing using staples, rubber bands, and a safety pin is described that allows easy inspection of the underlying skin graft. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981;7:334-5.
58Prunés F, Asbun H A simplified stent dressing technique using elastic rubber bands. Ann Plast Surg 1989;23:84-5.
59Di Benedetto G, Pierangeli M, Scalise A, Andriessen A, Rowan S, Bertani A An improved tie-over dressing technique for skin grafts using a hydrocellular dressing. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:507-9.
60Rieger UM, Haug M, Pierer G An alternative to bolus tie-over dressing for full-thickness skin grafts for conchal cavity defects. Ann Plast Surg 2007;59:353-4.
61Tribble DE A special skin grafting technique for concave surfaces and for traumatic amputations of fingers. Am Surg 2010;76:172-5.
62Yoong P, Caulfield R, Ramakrishnan V Point of technique: an alternative to the bolus tie-over dressing for full-thickness skin grafts. Ann Plast Surg 2007;58:466-7.
63Atherton D, Sreetharan V, Mosahebi A, Prior S, Willis J, Bishop J, et al. A randomised controlled trial of a double layer of allevyn compared to jellonet and proflavin as a tie-over dressing for small skin grafts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008;61:535-9.
64Saleh K, Sonesson A, Persson K, Riesbeck K, Schmidtchen A Can dressings soaked with polyhexanide reduce bacterial loads in full-thickness skin grafting? A randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;75:1221-28.e4.
65Keh SM, Giblett N, Ahsan SF Through-and-through mattress suturing versus tie-over dressing in full-thickness skin graft reconstruction. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;55:119-24.
66Dhillon M, Carter CP, Morrison J, Hislop WS, Currie WJ A comparison of skin graft success in the head & neck with and without the use of a pressure dressing. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14:240-2.
67Akhavani MA, McKinnell T, Kang NV Quilting of full thickness grafts in the hand. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:1534-7.
68De Gado F, Chiummariello S, Monarca C, Dessy LA, Rizzo MI, Alfano C, et al. Skin grafting: Comparative evaluation of two dressing techniques in selected body areas. In Vivo 2008;22:503-8.
69Yuki A, Takenouchi T, Takatsuka S, Fujikawa H, Abe R Investigating the use of tie-over dressing after skin grafting. J Dermatol 2017;44:1317-9.
70Shimizu I, MacFarlane DF Full-thickness skin grafts may not need tie-over bolster dressings. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:726-8.
71Goto H, Yoshikawa S, Mori K, Otsuka M, Omodaka T, Yoshimi K, et al. Retrospective evaluation of factors influencing successful skin grafting for patients with skin cancer of the foot. J Dermatol 2017;44:1043-5.
72Jeong HS, Kim KS, Lee HK Hydrocolloid dressings in skin grafting for immobilization and compression. Dermatol Surg 2011;37:320-4.
73Lee SH, Kim YJ Effectiveness of double tie-over dressing compared with bolster dressing. Arch Plast Surg 2018;45:266-70.
74Audrain H, Bray A, De Berker D Full-thickness skin grafts for lower leg defects: An effective repair option. Dermatol Surg 2015;41:493-8.
75Shimizu R, Kishi K Skin graft. Plast Surg Int 2012;2012:563493.
76Seymour FK, Giele HP Tie-overs under pressure. Br J Plast Surg 2003;56:494-7.
77Kromka W, Cameron M, Fathi R Tie-over bolster dressings vs basting sutures for the closure of full-thickness skin grafts: A review of the literature. J Cutan Med Surg 2018;22:602-6.
78Chalmers I, Glasziou P Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-9.
79McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al; Balliol Collaboration. No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009;374:1105-12.