529 Safeguarding Skin Grafts: A 21st Century Algorithm for Fixation Techniques

Aim Effective skin graft fixation is fundamental in preventing sheering forces, seroma and haematoma from compromising graft take. However, determining the ideal method of graft fixation remains a contentious subject. Currently, there is significant variation in fixation techniques used, based not only on clinical requirement, but also surgeon preference. Evidence-based recommendations are necessary to guide the decision-making process. Method We undertook a PRISMA-based assessment of the literature to define all fixation techniques and analyse their outcomes. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were composed. A search of Medline and Embase was performed, yielding 399 articles. After abstract screening, 96 were included for qualitative data analysis. Results Nine fixation techniques were identified: ‘tie over bolster’, ‘staple fixation’, ‘simple dressings’, ‘quilting sutures’, ‘re-look methods’, ‘foam sponge bolster’, ‘adhesive glues’, ‘negative pressure wound therapy’ and ‘less common techniques. We analyse the available evidence for each technique, identifying 13 studies with level I/II evidence. We summarise the research that underpins these nine categories, proposing an algorithm to facilitate technique selection based on anatomical and patient-specific factors. Conclusions An array of skin graft fixation techniques are used in plastic surgery, without clear guidelines. To our knowledge, this is the first time all fixation techniques have been defined. Our suggested algorithm is intended to aid surgeons in selecting an appropriate fixation technique and should be challenged by future research, particularly randomised control trials.

Comparison of 4 Different Fixation Strategies for Midfoot Arthrodesis: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Background Midfoot arthrodesis is a common procedure performed both for arthritis and correction of deformity. The optimal fixation for midfoot arthrodesis has not been established, though numerous studies have been investigating the fixation techniques of midfoot arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the union rate of midfoot arthrodesis using 4 different fixation strategies and investigate risk factors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent midfoot joint arthrodesis between January 2014 and May 2019. The rates of nonunion and postoperative complication were compared among 4 different fixation constructs: staple fixation, compression plate fixation, compression plate with lag screw fixation, and compression screw fixation. Predictors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis were investigated through a multivariable logistic regression analysis. A total of 95 patients (99 feet), including 240 midfoot joints were included in this study. The mean follow-up period was 78.4 weeks. Results Overall, bony union was achieved in 86 out of 99 (86.9%) patients, which included 218 out of 240 (90.8%) midfoot joints. A significant difference in the nonunion rate according to the type of fixation construct was found ( P = .011); the compression screw alone fixation construct was noted to have a significantly higher nonunion rate than other fixation constructs. Diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] = 0.179 [95% CI: 0.059, 0.542]), the type of fixation construct (compression screw alone; OR =1.789 [95% CI: 1.071, 2.978]), lack of adjuvant bone graft (OR = 2.803 [95% CI: 1.081, 7.268], and postoperative nonanatomical alignment (OR = 3.937 [95% CI: 1.278, 12.126]) were identified as independent predictors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis. Conclusion The rate of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis among 4 different commonly used fixation constructs was compared in this study. Risk factors of nonunion were investigated revealing that diabetes mellitus, compression screw fixation alone, lack of adjuvant bone graft, and postoperative nonanatomical alignment are independent predictors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Comparative cohort study