Search

Background: Effective skin graft fixation is vital in preventing sheering forces, seroma, and hematoma from compromising graft take. Yet, selecting the ideal technique for securing skin grafts remains a contentious subject, with significant variation in practice existing between surgeons. There is, therefore, benefit to be derived from assessing the literature for evidence-based recommendations to guide the decision-making process., Methods: A search of Medline and Embase was performed using appropriate key terms, yielding 419 articles. Reference lists were analyzed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were composed. Level I to III studies, as defined by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that compared skin graft fixation methods were analyzed. Rayyan QCRI was used for abstract and title screening. After full text screening, 41 studies were included for qualitative analysis. All included randomized control trials (RCTs) were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 (ROB2) tool., Results: We identified 4 groups of fixation technique: "tie-over bolster" (TOB), "no TOB," "adhesive glues," and "negative pressure wound therapy" (NPWT). Twelve studies compared TOB with no TOB, with no difference in graft take demonstrated. Sixteen studies compared adhesive glues with traditional methods, with no difference in graft take demonstrated. Thirteen studies compared NPWT with traditional methods, with enhanced graft take demonstrated. Risk of bias was deemed low in 1 of 13 RCTs., Conclusions: Based on the current evidence, only NPWT is associated with enhanced graft take. However, there is a scarcity of robust level I evidence comparing different fixation techniques, meaning that strong recommendations cannot be made. We propose examples of hypothesis-driven RCTs, in predetermined clinical settings, based on the theoretical benefits of the techniques that would add value to clinical practice., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)