ArticleNanotechnology, science and applications2026
Nanofiber Matrix Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Study.
Article in Nanotechnology, science and applications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Donor-site morbidity after split-thickness skin graft (STSG) harvest remains a significant clinical concern, with pain representing one of the most burdensome early postoperative symptoms. Electrospun nanofiber matrices have emerged as a promising wound management strategy, yet clinical evidence supporting their use in STSG donor sites remains limited. We evaluated the clinical performance of a nanofiber matrix for donor-site management after STSG harvest. Methods: This single-center randomized comparative study enrolled 40 adult patients undergoing STSG harvest into either the nanofiber matrix group (n=20) or the conventional dressing group with chlorhexidine paraffin gauze and povidone-iodine gauze (n=20). Pain intensity was measured on a 0-10 scale on postoperative days 1, 2, 5, and 14. Secondary outcomes included donor-site healing time, pruritus during healing, late scar hyperpigmentation, scar elevation, late pruritus, and local or systemic signs of infection. Results: Compared with conventional management, the nanofiber matrix significantly reduced donor-site pain on postoperative day 1 (p<0.001), day 2 (p<0.001), and day 5 (p=0.015), but not on day 14 (p=0.36). The nanofiber group also healed faster than the control group (15.05±2.34 vs 18.15±4.38 days; p=0.045). Pruritus during healing did not differ significantly between groups (p=0.97). At late follow-up, we found no significant between-group differences in hyperpigmentation (p=0.11), scar elevation (p=0.051), or late pruritus (p=1.0). Mild exudate occurred in 3 patients in the nanofiber group, without a significant between-group difference (p=0.12), and we identified no other infection-related complications. Conclusion: Nanofiber matrix dressing reduced early postoperative pain and shortened healing time at STSG donor sites compared with conventional dressing, while late scar outcomes and short-term safety remained comparable between groups. These findings support the potential of nanofiber-based donor-site management as a clinically relevant translational application of electrospinning technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.