Introduction: Autologous split thickness skin grafting is the standard-of-care for most deep dermal and full thickness skin defects. Historically, mesh grafting is used to expand skin grafts for smaller defects and other techniques such as Meek micrografting is used to enable expansion for larger skin defects. Yet, Meek micrografting is increasingly used for smaller skin defects as well. Both techniques are frequently used, especially in burn centers, but evidence on which one is preferable for relative smaller skin defects is lacking. Therefore, an intra-patient randomized controlled trial was designed to adequately compare multiple outcomes of the Meek micrografting and mesh grafting techniques. Materials and methods: A multicenter intra-patient controlled randomized trial is being performed in two burn centers (the Netherlands and Belgium) to compare multiple outcomes of Meek micrografting and mesh grafting burns or skin defects. Study registration number (NL74274.029.20). Adult patients with a (burn) wound and an indication for surgical excision and skin grafting were screened for inclusion. In total 70 patients will be included and the primary outcome is scar quality twelve months post-surgery assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Moreover, graft take, re-epithelialization, infection rate, donor site size and patients’ preference are also measured within hospital admission, on 3 months and 12 months post-surgery. Discussion: This is the first randomized trial that is intra-patient controlled, which enables a proper comparison between both skin expansion techniques. The results of this study will contribute to the clarification of the indications of both techniques and ample attention is paid for the patients’ opinion on the surgical treatment options.

Mesh grafting and Meek micrografting are split-thickness skin graft expansion techniques. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Meek and Mesh expansion ratios 1:2 and 1:3 in smaller wounds. An intra-patient randomized controlled trial was conducted at two burn centers (the Netherlands and Belgium). Wound outcomes, e.g., take rate, re-epithelialization rate, and donor site size, were measured. At 3 months post-surgery, patient preference and scar quality were evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), cutometer and dermaspectrometer. Seventy patients with a TBSA of 10 ± 10% (mean ± SD) were included. The take rate was 79 ± 25% vs. 87 ± 19% (p = 0.003), Meek vs. Mesh, respectively. At follow-up, a majority of observer and patient POSAS items were statistically significantly lower, corresponding with better scar quality for Mesh grafting compared to Meek micrografting. The scar elasticity was 0.37 ± 0.20 vs. 0.42 ± 0.21 (p = 0.013) and mean melanin 13.3 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 7.7 (p = 0.019) for Meek vs. Mesh, respectively, and the patient preference was 32%, 49%, and 19% for Meek, Mesh, and no preference. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant difference. In patients with smaller wounds, Mesh showed superiority on most wound and short-term scar results. Nevertheless, patient preference within the 1:3 expansion ratio group and donor site size were in favor of Meek.