Retrospective analysis of autologous blood use in bimaxillary repositioning osteotomy surgery: a quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have considered the necessity of preoperative autologous blood donation before bimaxillary orthognathic osteotomies. In the context of a quality improvement project, this topic was also investigated in our institution. Furthermore, the transfusion practice was analyzed and the correlations between patient, operative variables, and blood loss were studied. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Federal Medical Association and the Federal Ministry for Health and Social Security, a transfusion demand list was compiled using data of 82 patients who underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery between 1997 and 2005. The maximum blood loss tolerable without transfusion (MBL) was calculated for each patient on the basis of sex, weight, height, and preoperative hematocrit (Hct). This was compared with the actual transfusion and blood loss data. RESULTS: An autologous blood donation was carried out in 65 of 82 patients (79.3%). Sixty-two of 65 autologous blood donors (95.4%) and 2 of 17 patients (11.8%) without autologous blood donation received transfusion. The actual blood loss did not exceed the calculated MBL in 48 of the 82 cases. Nevertheless, 31 of these 48 patients (64.6%) received transfusions. For patients with a low calculated MBL, only a trend to a higher transfusion rate was observed, although the actual blood loss in these cases more often exceeded the individually calculated MBL (p < 0.01). In addition, transfusion triggers (Hct 0.22 or hemoglobin 7.5 g/dL) were also more often seen in cases with low calculated MBL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, an inappropriate transfusion practice in patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic osteotomies after preoperative autologous blood donation was detected. Calculation of the individual MBL should be used to help identify patients at high risk for transfusion and guide adequate methods to decrease the need of homologous blood.

Prospective randomized trial of accelerated re-epithelization of skin graft donor sites using extracorporeal shock wave therapy.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy may enhance revascularization and repair of healing soft tissue. METHODS: Between January 2006, and September 2007, 28 patients with acute traumatic wounds and burns requiring skin grafting were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to receive standard topical therapy (nonadherent silicone mesh [Mepitel, Mölnlycke Health Care] and antiseptic gel [polyhexanide/octenidine]) to graft donor sites with (n = 13) or without (n = 15) defocused extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT, 100 impulses/cm(2) at 0.1 mJ/mm(2)) applied once to the donor site, immediately after skin harvest. The randomization sequence was computer generated, and the patients were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to complete donor site epithelialization and was determined by an independent blinded observer. RESULTS: Statistical tests indicated no unbalanced distribution of subject characteristics across the two study groups. Mean times to complete graft donor site epithelialization for patients who did and did not undergo ESWT were 13.9 +/- 2.0 days and 16.7 +/- 2.0 days, respectively (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For centers that apply nonadherent gauze dressings and topical antiseptics to skin graft donor sites, application of a single defocused shock wave treatment immediately after skin graft harvest can significantly accelerate donor site epithelialization.

Suprathel, a new skin substitute, in the management of partial-thickness burn wounds: results of a clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: A prospective, randomized, bicentric, nonblinded, clinical study was conducted to evaluate the impact on wound healing of Suprathel in partial-thickness burn injuries. Suprathel represents an absorbable, synthetic wound dressing with properties of natural epithelium. METHODS: Thirty patients suffering from second-degree burn injuries were included in the study, with a mean of age 40.4 years old. Burn injuries were randomly selected, partly treated with Omiderm and partly treated with Suprathel. The first gauze change was applied the fifth day postoperatively, followed by regular wound inspection until complete reepithelization. The study focused on patient pain score, healing time, analysis of wound bed, ease of care, and treatment costs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 materials tested regarding healing time and reepithelization. There was a significant lower pain score for patients treated with Suprathel (P = 0.0072). Suprathel becomes transparent when applied, thus allowing close monitoring of wound healing. In contrast to Omiderm, Suprathel shows better attachment and adherence to wounds. During the course of healing, it detaches smoothly, without damaging the reepithelized wound surface. Moreover, it reduces the frequency of dressing changes required. Ease of care of Suprathel has been rated outstanding by patients and healthcare professionals. When interviewed, patients reported Suprathel as their treatment preference. As dressing material, Omiderm is more cost-effective than Suprathel. CONCLUSION: Suprathel represents a reliable epidermal skin substitute, with a good impact on wound healing and pain reduction in partial-thickness burn injuries. Although it is less cost-effective than Omiderm, the significant increase of patient comfort makes this material represent a reliable and solid treatment alternative when dealing with partial-thickness burn injuries. Further studies with this synthetic dressing on other types of wounds are warranted.