Full-thickness skin graft versus split-thickness skin graft for radial forearm free flap donor site closure: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe radial forearm free flap (RFFF) serves as a workhorse for a variety of reconstructions. Although there are a variety of surgical techniques for donor site closure after RFFF raising, the most common techniques are closure using a split-thickness skin graft (STSG) or a full-thickness skin graft (FTSG). The closure can result in wound complications and function and aesthetic compromise of the forearm and hand. The aim of the planned systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the wound-related, function-related and aesthetics-related outcome associated with full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG) and split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) in radial forearm free flap (RFFF) donor site closure.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be followed. Electronic databases and platforms (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)) and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, the German Clinical Trials Register, the ISRCTN registry, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) will be searched using predefined search terms until 15 January 2024. A rerun of the search will be carried out within 12 months before publication of the review. Eligible studies should report on the occurrence of donor site complications after raising an RFFF and closure of the defect. Included closure techniques are techniques that use full-thickness skin grafts and split-thickness skin grafts. Excluded techniques for closure are primary wound closure without the use of skin graft. Outcomes are considered wound-, functional-, and aesthetics-related. Studies that will be included are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies. Case-control studies, studies without a control group, animal studies and cadaveric studies will be excluded. Screening will be performed in a blinded fashion by two reviewers per study. A third reviewer resolves discrepancies. The risk of bias in the original studies will be assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Data synthesis will be done using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Between-study variability will be assessed using the I2 index. If necessary, R will be used. The quality of evidence for outcomes will eventually be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.DiscussionThis study's findings may help us understand both closure techniques' complication rates and may have important implications for developing future guidelines for RFFF donor site management. If available data is limited and several questions remain unanswered, additional comparative studies will be needed.Systematic review registrationThe protocol was developed in line with the PRISMA-P extension for protocols and was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 17 September 2023 (registration number CRD42023351903).