Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery
Print this page
Email this page
Small font size
Default font size
Increase font size
Home About us Current issue Archives Instructions Submission Subscribe Editorial Board Partners Contact e-Alerts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 17-23

To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous non-cultured non-trypsinized keratinocyte and melanocyte grafting (Jodhpur technique) with autologous platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM) in the treatment of chronic non-healing ulcer


Department of Dermatology, Dr S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Dilip Kachhawa
Bunglow No. 3, Outside Gate No. 1, MDM Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_196_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Chronic non-healing ulcers (NHUs) are often associated with some underlying pathology which prevents timely healing thus increasing the patients morbidity and healthcare expenses. Autologous non-cultured non-trypsinized keratinocyte and melanocyte grafting also known as Jodhpur technique (JT), an epidermal graft and autologous platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM) are newer modalities with promising results. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of JT and autologous PRFM in the treatment of chronic NHU. Design: A prospective hospital based interventional study conducted on 50 patients of chronic NHU attending the dermatology outdoor of a tertiary level government hospital. Materials and Methods: After taking clearance from the institutional ethical committee, the patients were enrolled into 2 groups of 25 each. JT was done on group A and autologous PRFM on group B and their efficacy and safety compared. Statistical Analysis: Chi square test was used to analyze categorical variables summarized as number and percentage while continuous variables were analyzed using student t-test for intergroup comparison. Results: In Group A, the mean time to ulcer healing was 6.17 ± 2.17 weeks while 6.43 ± 2.33 weeks in Group B. No side effects were found in either group. Conclusion: Both the techniques fair equally in terms of wound healing time and safety but required multiple sittings in group B and a single session in group A.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed772    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded127    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal