What is the risk of secondary infection after Split-Thickness Skin Grafting (SSG), and how is it managed in high-risk patients?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: February 4, 2026View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Incidence of Secondary Infection Post Split-Thickness Skin Grafting

The incidence of infection-related graft loss after split-thickness skin grafting is approximately 23.5% in general plastic surgery populations, with significantly higher rates in vascular ulcers (58.3%) and burn wounds (47.4%). 1

Risk Stratification by Wound Type

The risk of secondary infection varies dramatically based on the underlying wound etiology:

  • Vascular ulcers carry the highest infection risk at 58.3%, followed closely by burn wounds at 47.4% 1
  • Traumatic tissue defects have intermediate risk at 16.7% 1
  • Flap donor-site defects have the lowest risk at 13.5% 1
  • Vascular ulcers and burns are statistically more prone to infection-related graft loss compared to other tissue defects (P<0.001) 1

Microbiology and Clinical Impact

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the dominant pathogen, responsible for 58.1% of infection-related graft losses (P<0.05), and causes more fulminant infections requiring reoperation at 4.2 times the rate of other organisms 1. Other common pathogens include Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacter, enterococci, and Acinetobacter 1.

Additional Risk Factors

Beyond wound etiology, several anatomic and technical factors increase infection risk:

  • Lower extremity grafts have higher infection rates compared to other anatomical locations 1
  • Split-thickness grafts are more susceptible to infection than full-thickness grafts (P<0.05) 1
  • Multiple-site grafting increases infection risk 1

Management in High-Risk Patients

Antimicrobial-Impregnated Dressing with Negative Pressure

For chronic or contaminated wounds, use antimicrobial-impregnated dressing (0.2% polyhexamethylene biguanide) combined with negative-pressure wound therapy to achieve 100% graft take with zero infections. 2 This combination prevents infection while ensuring adequate immobilization and wound contact, eliminating partial graft loss, hematoma, and seroma formation 2.

Diabetic Foot Wounds

In diabetic populations with foot and ankle wounds from severe soft tissue infections, NPWT bolstering achieves healing in an average of 17 days with consistent improved outcomes compared to alternative techniques 3. This approach is particularly valuable for large wounds (averaging 57 cm²) resulting from infection treatment 3.

Common Pitfalls

  • Do not underestimate infection risk in vascular ulcers and burns—these require aggressive antimicrobial prophylaxis given their >50% infection rates 1
  • Pseudomonas infections demand immediate attention due to their fulminant nature and high reoperation rates 1
  • Lower extremity grafts warrant heightened surveillance regardless of wound etiology 1

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.