The CelluTome epidermal graft‐harvesting system: a patient‐reported outcome measure and cost evaluation study. Issue 3 (4th August 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Smith, Oliver J; Edmondson, Sarah‐Jayne; Bystrzonowski, Nicki; Hachach‐Haram, Nadine; Kanapathy, Muholan; Richards, Toby; Mosahebi, Ash
• Is Part Of: International wound journal. Volume 14:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 555
• Page End: 560
• Publication Date: 2016-08-04
• Subjects: CelluTome -- Cost analysis -- Epidermal skin grafting -- Patient‐recorded outcome measures -- Split skin grafting; Wounds and injuries -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Periodicals; Wound healing -- Periodicals; 617.1005
• DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12644
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1742-4801

Abstract

Abstract: Conventional split skin grafts (SSG) require anaesthesia, specialist equipment and can have high donor site (DS) morbidity. The CelluTome epidermal graft‐harvesting device is a novel alternative, providing pain‐free epidermal skin grafts (ESG) in the outpatient setting, with projected minimal DS trauma and improved patient satisfaction. This study aimed to compare ESG with SSG by evaluating patient‐related outcome measures (PROMs) and the cost implications of both. Twenty patients answered a graft satisfaction questionnaire that evaluated: donor/graft site noticeability, aesthetic concerns, adverse problems and patient satisfaction. Cost/patient was calculated based on total operative expenses and five clinic follow‐ups. In 100% of the ESG cases, there were no DS noticeability or adverse problems compared to 25% in the SSG group. Complete satisfaction with DS appearance was observed in 100% of the ESG cases (50% SSG). Noticeability, adverse problems and overall satisfaction were significantly better in ESG cases ( P < 0.05). Graft site parameters were comparable with similar healing outcomes. The cost per patient for ESG was £431 and £1489 for SSG, with an annual saving of £126 960 based on 10 grafts/month. For the right patient, CelluTome provides comparable wound healing, with reduced DS morbidity and higher patient satisfaction.