{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02234258632362898, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016249153689911984, 'mean_word_length': 5.2100840336134455, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Treatment of the donor site of free radial flaps: vacuum sealing versus conventional wound care

Abstract Introduction: Radial forearm flap donor side defects can be treated by vacuum therapy and conventional wound dressing. The aim of this study was to compare different wound management considering wound healing, including risk factors and cost effectiveness. Materials and methods: Retrospective study including patients treated with radial flaps in the Department of Head and Neck Surgery in Erlangen from January 2005 to August 2013. Wound healing was assessed regarding complications considering several risk factors and comorbidities. Data were analyzed comparing conventional dressing and vacuum therapy, including a calculation of costs. Results: The study included 138 patients (n = 55 conventional dressing; n = 83 vacuum dressing). The incidence of wound complications in the vacuum group was 50.6 and 32.7% in the conventional dressing group (p = .058). The presence of risk factors and comorbidities did not have significant impact on the occurrence of complications. Costs for vacuum therapy turned out to be at least five times higher. Conclusion: In view of the current state of research, these results show that using vacuum dressings has no significant benefit in the wound management of forearm donor side defect covered with full-thickness skin grafts. If the costs and economical aspects are also considered, conventional wound dressing may be preferred.