Objective & Patient-Reported Assessment of Skin grafts & Keystone flap
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Keystone flaps as an alternative to split thickness skin grafting post-skin cancer excision: a cohort study of patient-reported and objective clinical outcome measures
IRAS ID
230581
Contact name
Iain Whitaker
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Swansea University
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 7 months, 6 days
Research summary
Skin cancer is the most common malignancy worldwide, with 1 in 5 Americans developing skin cancer in their lifetime. This number is predicted to continue to increase, with a doubling in number of new diagnoses in the next 30 years.
When a skin cancer is removed from the skin a defect is often left which needs to be closed. In many cases this can be done by stitching the edges of the skin together, leaving a long, straight scar. However, in some cases the hole is too big and therefore other methods of reconstruction are required. Two common ways of achieving this is to take a shaving of skin from elsewhere on the body (a skin graft) or move tissue from next to the defect into the defect (know as a local tissue flap). Both have benefits and disadvantages and in some cases only one will be technically possible. Despite this little is known about which is truly ‘better’, both from a patient-reported point of view and an objective skin quality point of view. In an era of shared-decision making between clinicians’ and patients’, it is important that the patient is involved in the discussion regarding the most appropriate reconstructive option and therefore to inform this discussion better evidence comparing the two types of reconstruction is required.
It is the aim of this study to compare outcomes between skin grafts and a type of local flap called a Keystone flap. Two groups of patients who have either had a skin graft or Keystone flap will be invited to an assessment clinic where their views will be assessed using a validated patient-reported outcome measure. Objective assessment of skin quality will also be carried out using standardised, clinically available and non-invasive equipment.
REC name
East of England - Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/EE/0391
Date of REC Opinion
4 Oct 2017
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion