BACKGROUND: The two major concerns in skin grafting are poor color match in the recipient sites and donor-site morbidity. A dermis graft, which is a de-epithelialized split-thickness skin graft, was used to minimize these problems. The important aspects of this method involve the immediate return of the epidermis to the donor site and the restoration of the epidermis portion of the recipient site by inducing epithelization from the adjacent skin. METHODS: From April of 2001 to March of 2004, the dermis graft was applied to 53 patients. A regular split-thickness skin graft procedure was performed in 33 patients. Healing time, scar condition, and patient satisfaction were compared. RESULTS: The wounds of the dermis (n = 53) and skin grafts (n = 33) had re-epithelialized after 15.5 +/- 1.9 and 11.8 +/- 1.6 days, respectively. Scarring on the recipient site of the dermis graft (n = 26) was less severe than that on the regular skin graft (n = 20) in terms of pigmentation, height, and vascularity (p < 0.05). No significant difference in pliability was detected. Patient satisfaction with the dermis graft group was also better. The donor sites of the dermis graft (n = 53) and skin graft (n = 33) healed within 7.5 +/- 0.8 and 12.8 +/- 1.1 days, respectively. The donor sites of the dermis graft (n = 26) were also superior to those of the skin graft (n = 20) in terms of scar quality and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The dermis graft technique for wound coverage is superior both aesthetically and functionally to the regular skin graft technique in both the recipient and donor sites.
BACKGROUND: The two major concerns in skin grafting are poor color match in the recipient sites and donor-site morbidity. A dermis graft, which is a de-epithelialized split-thickness skin graft, was used to minimize these problems. The important aspects of this method involve the immediate return of the epidermis to the donor site and the restoration of the epidermis portion of the recipient site by inducing epithelization from the adjacent skin. METHODS: From April of 2001 to March of 2004, the dermis graft was applied to 53 patients. A regular split-thickness skin graft procedure was performed in 33 patients. Healing time, scar condition, and patient satisfaction were compared. RESULTS: The wounds of the dermis (n = 53) and skin grafts (n = 33) had re-epithelialized after 15.5 +/- 1.9 and 11.8 +/- 1.6 days, respectively. Scarring on the recipient site of the dermis graft (n = 26) was less severe than that on the regular skin graft (n = 20) in terms of pigmentation, height, and vascularity (p < 0.05). No significant difference in pliability was detected. Patient satisfaction with the dermis graft group was also better. The donor sites of the dermis graft (n = 53) and skin graft (n = 33) healed within 7.5 +/- 0.8 and 12.8 +/- 1.1 days, respectively. The donor sites of the dermis graft (n = 26) were also superior to those of the skin graft (n = 20) in terms of scar quality and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The dermis graft technique for wound coverage is superior both aesthetically and functionally to the regular skin graft technique in both the recipient and donor sites.