Meek micrografting history, indications, technique, physiology and experience: a review article

Aims: Traumatic loss of skin, particularly in major burns, requires skin grafting to repair the tissue. For a large burn, where donor sites are limited, the skin graft may need to be expanded. In addition, rapid wound closure is a large factor in successful recovery and is usually achieved by debridement and skin grafting. Micrografting was introduced by Meek and involved dividing the skin into small pieces, allowing for up to a tenfold skin expansion. Methods: We conducted a review of the literature, searched via Medline, Pubmed and Embase (from 1958 to June 2017), searching to identify studies and reports of micrografting. We searched using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) ‘micrograft’, ‘micrograft technique’, ‘Meek’, ‘Meek technique’, ‘Parker Cicero’, ‘major burn treatment’ and ‘mesh skin graft’. Results: We analysed 24 articles in which the description and modifications presented by the micrograft technique were presented, along with evidence that supports or rejects its use. The consensus was for the use of micrografting in burns of >30% total body surface area (TBSA). On poor wound beds, the evaluation of re-epithelialisation had greater success due to low metabolic demands and greater skin coverage compared with control groups (p<0.005). Comparing the ‘mesh’ with ‘Meek’ group, the micrograft group had fewer surgeries (10 versus 19.75), shorter average length of hospital stay (51 days versus 120.5 days; p<0.05). Conclusions: Micrografting can be used where there is poor bed vascularity (such as in patients with diabetes), with higher success due to low metabolic demand. This is recommended for major burns, >30% TBSA, with inadequate donor sites and comorbidities, such as diabetes. However, disadvantages include a ‘polka dot’ appearance on healing and the fact the initial surgeries, creating the micrograft squares, are labour-intensive.