About the Article
Article Files
[This article belongs to Volume - 70, Issue - 8]
Published on : 2025-08-11 20:54:26
Article Code: AMJ-11-08-2025-12328
Title : A comparative study between full-thickness and partial thickness skin grafts in the reconstruction of nasal defects
Author(s) : Mohammad A Alhasan, Feras Melhem, Mostafa Ibrahim
Abstract :
Reconstructing nasal skin defects presents a significant challenge for reconstructive and plastic surgeons,
necessitating careful selection of techniques to achieve satisfactory functional and aesthetic outcomes. This study
compared the efficacy of full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs) and split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) in addressing nasal
skin defects among 19 patients. Patients were divided into two groups: 11 received FTSGs, while 8 underwent
reconstruction with STSGs. Results demonstrated that FTSGs exhibited significantly higher graft viability at both 5-
and 30-days post-surgery compared to STSGs, despite slightly longer operative duration, though the difference in
duration was not statistically significant. Both techniques showed comparable safety profiles, with no significant
differences in postoperative complication rates or the need for blood transfusions. The superior performance of
FTSGs is attributed to their inclusion of the complete dermal layer, which enhances vascularization and integration
with recipient tissues—critical factors for successful outcomes in the functionally and aesthetically sensitive nasal
region. However, STSGs may remain a viable option in specific scenarios, such as smaller defects or limited donor
site availability, owing to their faster donor-site healing. This study underscores the prioritization of FTSGs for nasal
reconstruction, particularly in cases demanding high-quality functional and aesthetic results, while emphasizing the
need for individualized decision-making based on patient-specific characteristics and defect complexity. Nonetheless,
larger studies with extended follow-up periods are warranted to evaluate long-term outcomes, including aesthetic
satisfaction, patient-reported quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of the two techniques.