Comparison of Heparin Dressing versus Saline Dressing for Pain Relief at Split Thickness Skin Graft Donor Site

Aqsa  Younas; Mustehsan  Bashir; Omar  Afzal; Tayyeba  Aslam

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.2057

Authors

Aqsa Younas Department of Plastic and Burn Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Mustehsan Bashir Department of Plastic and Burn Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Omar Afzal Department of Plastic and Burn Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Tayyeba Aslam Assistant Professor Anesthesia, Farooq hospital Lahore

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.2057

Keywords:

Split-thickness skin graft, Heparin dressing, Saline dressing, Donor site pain, Wound healing, Epithelialization

Abstract

Split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) is a widely used reconstructive technique for treating various soft tissue defects. Objective: To compare the efficacy of heparin dressing versus saline dressing in terms of pain relief, healing time, complications, and patient satisfaction at split-thickness skin graft donor sites. Methodology: This prospective comparative study was conducted at Mayo Hospital, Lahore, from September 2024 to February 2025. A total of 320 patients undergoing STSG were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups: Group A (heparin dressing, n = 160) and Group B (saline dressing, n = 160). Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, and 7. Healing time, complications, and patient satisfaction were also recorded. Results: The mean pain scores were significantly lower in the heparin group across all postoperative days (Day 1: 6.8 ± 1.2 vs 7.4 ± 1.3; Day 7: 1.2 ± 0.6 vs 2.5 ± 0.7; p < 0.001). The average healing time was shorter in the heparin group (8.3 ± 1.4 days) compared to the saline group (10.1 ± 1.6 days; p < 0.001). Delayed healing occurred in 6.3% of heparin-treated patients, compared with 15.6% in the saline group (p = 0.02). Patient satisfaction was higher with heparin dressings (87.5% vs 68.1%; p < 0.001), while infection rates were low and comparable between groups. Conclusion: It is concluded that heparin dressing provides superior outcomes compared to saline dressing for donor site management in split-thickness skin grafts. It significantly reduces postoperative pain, accelerates epithelialization, and enhances patient comfort without increasing complications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adil F, Memon MA, Khan FAA, et al. Efficacy of topical heparin spray on donor site wound healing after split-thickness skin grafting. Sci Rep. 2025;15:27814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95437-5

Manzoor S, Khan S, Ahmad Z, et al. Comparative study of conventional and topical heparin treatment in second-degree burn patients for burn analgesia and wound healing. Burns. 2019;45(2):379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2018.08.019

Kazanavičius M, Cepas A, Kolaityte V, Simoliuniene R, Rimdeika R. The use of modern dressings in managing split-thickness skin graft donor sites: a single-centre randomised controlled trial. J Wound Care. 2017;26(6):281–291. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.6.281

Bradow BP, Hallock GG, Wilcock SP. Immediate regrafting of the split-thickness skin graft donor site promotes healing. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(5):e1339. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001339

Park YJ, Lee HJ, Lee SH, et al. Immediate regraft of the remnant skin on the donor site in split-thickness skin grafting. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2019;20(2):94. https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2019.00150

Aghdam AM, Alizadeh A, Toomatari SBM, Toomatari SEM. Comparison of three different methods of dressing for the skin graft donor site. Int J Med Toxicol Forensic Med. 2020;10(2):e29059. https://doi.org/10.32598/ijmtfm.v10i2.29059

Sinha S, Schreiner AJ, Biernaskie J, Nickerson D, Gabriel VA. Treating pain on skin graft donor sites: review and clinical recommendations. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(5):954–964. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001615

Guogienė I, Kievišas M, Varkalys K, Braziulis K, Rimdeika R. Split-thickness skin grafting using grafts of different thickness. Eur J Plast Surg. 2018;41(5):583–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-018-1424-1

Zahid Z, Ali H, Khursheed RM, Shaikh U, Khan S. Comparative analysis of the effect of lidocaine and adrenaline soaked gauze versus normal saline soaked gauze at the skin graft donor site of the thigh: a randomized controlled trial. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2024;74(Suppl-2): S189–S194. https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74iSUPPL-2.5693

Alam I, Mujahid AM, Khan H. Comparison of heparin dressing and conventional dressing in second degree burn patients in terms of pain relief and wound healing. Prof Med J. 2022;29(2):131–136. https://doi.org/10.29309/TPMJ/2022.29.02.6299

Goverman J, Kraft CT, Fagan S, Levi B. Back grafting the split-thickness skin graft donor site. J Burn Care Res. 2017;38(1):e443–e449. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0000000000000314

Groenewold MD, Gribnau AJ, Ubbink DT. Topical haemostatic agents for skin wounds: a systematic review. BMC Surg. 2011;11(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-11-15

Rojas S, del Caz MDP, Vico JRE, et al. EHTIC study: evaluation of a new hemostatic agent based on tissue factor in skin grafting procedures. Burns. 2017;43(4):780–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2017.01.007

Brown JE, Holloway SL. An evidence-based review of split-thickness skin graft donor site dressings. Int Wound J. 2018;15(6):1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12967

Koujalagi R, Uppin V, Pawar R, Patil VA. Tumescent versus non-tumescent technique in skin graft healing: a cross-sectional study. Int Surg J. 2018;5(5):1822–1825. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181590

Browning JA, Cindass R. Burn debridement, grafting, and reconstruction. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan–. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551717/

Cartotto R, Kadikar N, Musgrave MA, Gomez M, Cooper AB. What are the acute cardiovascular effects of subcutaneous and topical epinephrine for hemostasis during burn surgery? J Burn Care Rehabil. 2003;24(5):297–305. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BCR.0000085847.47967.75

Hecker A, Lumenta DB, Brinskelle P, et al. A randomized controlled trial of three advanced wound dressings in split-thickness skin grafting donor sites: a personalized approach. J Pers Med. 2022;12(9):1395. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12091395

Akhoondinasab MR, Karimi H, Sheikhizadeh S, Saberi M. Reducing pain at split thickness donor sites with silicone dressing compared to petrolatum gauze dressing. Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2019;32(3):210–215.

Rahman S, Langridge B, Al-Hadad A, Khan RA, Junejo MH, Mosahebi A. Biological versus non-biological dressings in the management of split-thickness skin-graft donor sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Wound Care. 2020;29(10):604–610. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2020.29.10.604

Karlsson M, Elmasry M, Steinvall I, Sjöberg F, Olofsson P. Scarring at donor sites after split-thickness skin graft: a prospective, longitudinal, randomized trial. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2020;33(12):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000720256.45983.28