OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare two dressing methods used as skin graft bolsters. The two dressings were compared as to efficacy (% graft take), ease of application, pain scores, safety(complication rate) and cost.

METHODS: This is a prospective randomized controlled trial involving 34 patients. The basis of comparison between the two dressing methods included: efficacy determined by percentage of graft take on the 7th and 14th day post-Split Thickness Skin Grafting; ease of the application (amount of time to apply dressing); pain (VAS) scores at 1st, 7th and 14th day post-Split Thickness Skin Grafting; complications and costs.

RESULTS: The NPWT group has statistically significant differences from the Tie-Over Bolster group. NPWT took less time to apply the dressing (1-10mins vs 6-15mins), had a higher percentage of graft take (99.05% vs 96.52%), had lower pain scores overall, had lower complication rates (infection: 0% vs 2.94%), and cost less (Php 2,917.00 vs Php 3,684.00).

DISCUSSION: The Low-Cost NPWT system was developed in this institution due to the exorbitant cost of commercial NPWT pump and dressing systems. Thus, a week-long NPWT therapy using commercial NPWT systems may cost as much as Php 24,000.00, while the low-cost NPWT alternative only costs Php2,917.00.

CONCLUSIONS: The locally-developed, low-cost NPWT dressing has been proven to be faster to apply, more effective in integrating split-thickness skin grafts, has less discomfort and complications, and is actually cheaper than the conventional tie-over bolster dressings.