Comparative Effectiveness of Fluid Absorption Between Superabsorbent and Foam Dressings in Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Acute wounds with high exudate output, such as split-thickness skin-graft donor sites, require dressings that effectively manage fluid, reduce pain, and support timely epithelialization. Foam dressings are widely used, but superabsorbent materials may provide advantages in exudate handling. This study compared the absorption performance, wound healing, and pain outcomes of foam versus superabsorbent dressings in donor-site wounds. Thirty patients undergoing split-thickness skin grafting were enrolled, with no exclusions or loss to follow-up. Each donor site was divided into two equal zones, with one receiving a foam dressing and the other a superabsorbent dressing according to randomized allocation. Data were collected using coded identifiers. Clinical outcomes, including absorption capacity, wound epithelialization, pain scores, and complications, were evaluated at 3-day intervals through postoperative day 15. Experimental testing showed that a 10 × 10 cm foam dressing weighed 7.5 g and absorbed 75 mL of saline, whereas the superabsorbent dressing weighed 5.5 g and absorbed 93 mL. Clinically, absorption power was significantly higher with the superabsorbent dressing on day 3 (104.09 vs. 71.87 mg/cm2/day; p = 0.034), day 6 (84.45 vs. 40.91 mg/cm2/day; p < 0.001), and day 9 (76.59 vs. 19.74 mg/cm2/day; p = 0.022). Pain scores tended to be lower with the superabsorbent dressing on days 6 and 9, although the differences were not statistically significant. Wound epithelialization was comparable between groups, with no allergic reactions, infections, or other complications observed. Superabsorbent dressing demonstrated superior absorption capacity compared with foam dressing, while achieving comparable epithelialization and healing outcomes. Pain scores tended to be lower with the superabsorbent dressing during the early postoperative period, although the differences were not statistically significant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.