{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,23]],"date-time":"2026-06-23T14:56:21Z","timestamp":1782226581543,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"HMP Communications, LLC","issue":"2","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Wounds"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction. Restoration of an intact skin barrier is of utmost importance to prevent infection and wound contractures. Skin grafting is a rapid, effective method of wound coverage. The chief goal of management of the donor area is to achieve early epithelialization without infection. The donor areas need optimum local care to achieve this goal with minimal pain and in a cost-effective manner. Objective. This study compared nonadhesive polyethylene dressings with chlorhexidine-impregnated tulle gras dressings for donor areas. Material and Methods. This was a prospective, randomized, observational study in a tertiary hospital and included 60 patients with posttraumatic, postinfective, or burn wounds. Patients were randomized into 2 groups to receive either chlorhexidine-impregnated tulle gras or polyethylene film for donor area coverage. The pain score, comfort score, completeness of epithelialization, and sequelae were studied in both groups. Results. Patients in the polyethylene film group showed a significantly better comfort score and reduced pain on day 14 as compared with the chlorhexidine group. Time to complete epithelialization was similar in both groups. Conclusions. Polyethylene nonadhesive film dressing is a low-cost, inert, safe, and easily available alternative for donor area dressing and is superior to chlorhexidine-impregnated tulle gras in terms of pain and comfort.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.25270\/wnds\/21146","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,8]],"date-time":"2023-05-08T19:27:26Z","timestamp":1683574046000},"page":"41-46","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Chlorhexidine-impregnated Tulle Gras Versus Polyethylene Nonadhesive Film for Dressing of Donor Site Wounds in Cases of Split-thickness Skin Graft"],"prefix":"10.25270","volume":"35","author":[{"given":"Iyer","family":"Sandhya","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Prabhakar","family":"Subramaniyan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Gade","family":"Sujata","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"10906","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023]]},"container-title":["Wounds: a compendium of clinical research and practice"],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,8]],"date-time":"2023-05-08T19:27:30Z","timestamp":1683574050000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com\/site\/wounds\/original-research\/chlorhexidine-impregnated-tulle-gras-versus-polyethylene-nonadhesive"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2023]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25270\/wnds\/21146","relation":{},"ISSN":["1044-7946","1943-2704"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1044-7946","type":"print"},{"value":"1943-2704","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2023]]}}}