D Wyrzykowski1, B Chrzanowska2, P Czauderna1. 1. Department of Surgery and Urology for Children and Adolescents, Medical University of Gdansk, Poland. 2. Department of Surgery and Urology for Children and Adolescents, Medical University of Gdansk, Poland. Electronic address: bchrzanowska@gumed.edu.pl.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Choice of the donor site for a split thickness skin graft depends on skin availability, possible complications and anticipated esthetic results. We selected the scalp to be the primary donor site at our institution. During a period of ten years (1998-2008), a group of 123 pediatric patients aged 4 months to 15 years (65% were below the age of 2; mean age 2.98 years) underwent skin grafting from this particular site. In 2 cases the same area was re-harvested. All donor sites healed by the 10th post-operative day. Donor site complications included: 2 microalopecia regions, 5 pressure sores in a close proximity, 1 hypertrophic scar and 1 visible mark on the forehead due to technical mistake in graft harvesting. All children started scar management of the recipient site with contact therapy using adhesive tape Hypafix (BSN Medical); subsequently moving on to silicone sheets or gel in selected refractory cases. We present results for 68 scars in 41 patients with the longest follow-up period. Scar quality was evaluated after minimum of 10 years and scored according to the Vancouver Scar Assessment Scale. Very good and good results were obtained in 55 scars (80.9%), satisfactory in 11 scars (16.2%) and unsatisfactory in 2 scars (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm, that the scalp is a reliable donor site in children and contact therapy is an adequate form of scar prevention/treatment of the recipient site.
UNLABELLED: Choice of the donor site for a split thickness skin graft depends on skin availability, possible complications and anticipated esthetic results. We selected the scalp to be the primary donor site at our institution. During a period of ten years (1998-2008), a group of 123 pediatric patients aged 4 months to 15 years (65% were below the age of 2; mean age 2.98 years) underwent skin grafting from this particular site. In 2 cases the same area was re-harvested. All donor sites healed by the 10th post-operative day. Donor site complications included: 2 microalopecia regions, 5 pressure sores in a close proximity, 1 hypertrophic scar and 1 visible mark on the forehead due to technical mistake in graft harvesting. All children started scar management of the recipient site with contact therapy using adhesive tape Hypafix (BSN Medical); subsequently moving on to silicone sheets or gel in selected refractory cases. We present results for 68 scars in 41 patients with the longest follow-up period. Scar quality was evaluated after minimum of 10 years and scored according to the Vancouver Scar Assessment Scale. Very good and good results were obtained in 55 scars (80.9%), satisfactory in 11 scars (16.2%) and unsatisfactory in 2 scars (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm, that the scalp is a reliable donor site in children and contact therapy is an adequate form of scar prevention/treatment of the recipient site.