J P Newman1, P Fitzgerald, R J Koch. 1. Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laser skin resurfacing has become an accepted technique for the treatment of facial rhytides and associated solar skin damage. Achieving a successful result is directly related to proper postoperative wound care during the reepithelialization process. There are open and closed approaches to the treatment of the post-laser resurfacing patient with distinct advantages and disadvantages. OBJECTIVE: To review the most commonly used closed dressings after facial laser skin resurfacing and compare their advantages and disadvantages. To compare clinical findings with a group of patients treated exclusively with an open technique. METHODS: Review of composite foams, polymer film, polymer mesh, and hydrogel products and prospective observations of clinical outcomes of patients treated with each dressing category after facial laser skin resurfacing. We perform a retrospective chart review of a group of patients treated exclusively with an open technique comparing crust formation, comfort, and pruritus with the prospective group of patients treated with closed dressings. RESULTS: The closed dressings available today each have unique structural configurations and adhesive properties intended to maintain an occlusive wound environment. Patient acceptance of these dressings was favorable, with improved comfort compared to the open dressing group. Complications of bacterial infections and contact dermatitis were not observed when closed dressings were used with a protocol for dressing changes performed at 48 hours. Rates of reepithelialization did not vary according to dressing category. Crust formation and postoperative pruritus occurred less frequently when closed occlusive dressings were worn by patients. CONCLUSIONS: When used properly, these dressings improve patient comfort, simplify their postoperative wound care, and do not increase the risk of infection or contact dermatitis. Overall satisfaction was highest with perforated mesh and polymer dressings for full-face wounds.
BACKGROUND: Laser skin resurfacing has become an accepted technique for the treatment of facial rhytides and associated solar skin damage. Achieving a successful result is directly related to proper postoperative wound care during the reepithelialization process. There are open and closed approaches to the treatment of the post-laser resurfacing patient with distinct advantages and disadvantages. OBJECTIVE: To review the most commonly used closed dressings after facial laser skin resurfacing and compare their advantages and disadvantages. To compare clinical findings with a group of patients treated exclusively with an open technique. METHODS: Review of composite foams, polymer film, polymer mesh, and hydrogel products and prospective observations of clinical outcomes of patients treated with each dressing category after facial laser skin resurfacing. We perform a retrospective chart review of a group of patients treated exclusively with an open technique comparing crust formation, comfort, and pruritus with the prospective group of patients treated with closed dressings. RESULTS: The closed dressings available today each have unique structural configurations and adhesive properties intended to maintain an occlusive wound environment. Patient acceptance of these dressings was favorable, with improved comfort compared to the open dressing group. Complications of bacterial infections and contact dermatitis were not observed when closed dressings were used with a protocol for dressing changes performed at 48 hours. Rates of reepithelialization did not vary according to dressing category. Crust formation and postoperative pruritus occurred less frequently when closed occlusive dressings were worn by patients. CONCLUSIONS: When used properly, these dressings improve patient comfort, simplify their postoperative wound care, and do not increase the risk of infection or contact dermatitis. Overall satisfaction was highest with perforated mesh and polymer dressings for full-face wounds.
Authors: Stephen C Davis; Jie Li; Joel Gil; Jose Valdes; Michael Solis; Ryan Treu; Robert S Kirnser Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 3.315