Skip to main content

Padgett Dermatome

The Padgett Electric Dermatome (Integra LifeSciences) is an electrically powered handheld oscillating-blade alternative to the pneumatic Zimmer Air Dermatome. The B and PI models offer a skin-graft harvest option where a compatible electrical supply is available without compressed gas. A published technique also describes Padgett-assisted free-flap de-epithelialization.[1][3]

Design​

  • Handheld head with electric motor and oscillating disposable blade
  • Model-specific power supply and cord. No compressed gas required; verify the voltage variant and supplied components against the device instructions[1]
  • Width clips: 2", 3", 4" in the standard Model B kit; Model PI kits include 2" through 6" clips. A 1" clip is listed separately for each model in the cited guide.[1]
  • Thickness adjustment and manufacturer calibration gauge. Use the model-specific instructions rather than assuming Zimmer settings apply[1]
  • Reprocessing is component-specific. The manufacturer's guide permits sterilization of the handpiece with its attached cable/plug but explicitly says not to autoclave the power supply or power-supply wall cord.[1]

Reconstructive / Urogyn Uses​

Identical to the Zimmer Air Dermatome:

  • Scrotal reconstruction after Fournier's gangrene. An established GU indication
  • Post-debridement coverage. Hidradenitis suppurativa, NSTI, buried-penis reconstruction
  • Penile shaft resurfacing. Post-free-silicone explant, chronic dermatitis, post-LS excision
  • Perineal reconstruction after radical debridement
  • Phalloplasty donor-site coverage. RFFF / ALT / MLD harvest sites
  • STSG-lined neovagina as a vaginoplasty option in GAS
  • Coverage over tissue expanders in staged penile reconstruction

Distinctive Use — Free-Flap De-Epithelialization​

Padgett-assisted de-epithelialization of free flaps has been described in breast reconstruction.[3] The cited report does not compare devices.

Padgett vs Zimmer Air Dermatome​

FeaturePadgett ElectricZimmer Air
Power sourceCompatible model-specific electrical supplyRegulated medical-grade nitrogen / air
Setup dependencyCorrect power supply, voltage variant and reprocessingCompatible regulated gas source, hose and reprocessing
Operational costDepends on local supply and servicingDepends on local gas supply and servicing
Field tetherPower cordPneumatic hose
Width rangeUp to 6" with Model PI clipsUp to 4", with an optional 1.5" plate
Free-flap de-epithelializationPublished breast-reconstruction technique[3]No comparative prevalence established

Egro 2020 reported that 73.0% of surveyed dermatome-induced lacerations occurred with air-powered devices and 71.6% with Zimmer-branded devices.[2]

Accuracy and Calibration​

The same dial-vs-actual-thickness caveat that applies to the Zimmer applies to the Padgett:

  • McBride 2017: 140 grafts from 91 children (air-powered dermatome; application to Padgett is an extrapolation): at a dial setting of 0.007", median measured thickness was 6.94/1000" (IQR 5.05–9.28/1000").[4]
  • Dargan 2025 scalpel-blade test assessed aperture behavior on six devices, with ICC 0.89 intra-observer and 0.52 inter-observer; it did not validate the thickness of harvested tissue.[5]

Use the Padgett model's manufacturer inspection/calibration procedure and assess the harvested graft.[1]

Technique Pearls​

The same operator pearls as the Zimmer apply:

  • Tumescent infiltration of donor site with saline ± dilute epinephrine
  • Mineral oil / lubricant on the donor skin
  • Angulation 25–45° for Padgett Models B/PI, consistent through the pass[1]
  • Steady, even downward pressure. Excessive pressure was the most commonly attributed cause among reported lacerations in a burn-unit survey[2]
  • Controlled forward speed
  • Model B/PI duty cycle. Do not operate the dermatome in contact with the patient for more than 30 seconds; allow at least 5 minutes of cooling between grafts.[1]
  • Assistant counter-traction ahead and behind the dermatome
  • Pre-use blade and depth verification. Use a new Integra Padgett 4-inch blade (3539252) with Model B or a 6-inch blade (3539602) with Model PI; do not reuse blades.[1]
  • Choose a width clip appropriate to the defect and device.[2] The survey lacked exposure denominators.[2]

The added Padgett-specific consideration: route the power cord off the field thoughtfully; the tether class of complication is real (foot snag, sterile-field break).

Historical Context — Earl Padgett​

Earl Calvin Padgett (1893–1946), head of plastic surgery at the University of Kansas Medical Center, designed the original Padgett-Hood drum dermatome with engineer George J. Hood in 1939, the first calibrated mechanical dermatome. Hood applied for the patent in 1938; Padgett displayed the working model at a 1939 medical meeting. The instrument was based on the adhesion-traction principle and was called by a founding member of the American Board of Plastic Surgery "the greatest contribution in many decades to the technique of skin grafting."[6]

The modern handheld electric Padgett dermatome (Models B / PI / S) is the contemporary descendant of that lineage. See the Drum Dermatome (Padgett-Hood) page for the original device.

See also: Dermatome — Overview, Zimmer Air Dermatome, Drum Dermatome (Padgett-Hood), Humby Dermatome, Goulian Dermatome, Skin Mesher, STSG.

References​

1. Integra LifeSciences. "Padgett Electric Dermatome Models B and PI — User's Guide." products.integralife.com/file/products/padgett-electric-dermatome-models-b-and-pi-ifu-rev-fab.pdf

2. Egro FM, Saliu OT, Zhu X, Corcos AC, Ziembicki JA. "Dermatome-induced lacerations: an unspoken problem in burn surgery." J Surg Res. 2020;245:45–50. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.07.022

3. Hattori Y, Imai S, Niu A. "Padgett dermatome for de-epithelialization of free flaps in breast reconstruction." Microsurgery. 2020;40(3):419–420. doi:10.1002/micr.30568

4. McBride CA, Kempf M, Kimble RM, Stockton K. "Variability in split-thickness skin graft depth when using an air-powered dermatome: a paediatric cohort study." Burns. 2017;43(7):1552–1560. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2017.02.010

5. Dargan DP, Gottlieb LJ, Vrouwe SQ. "Assessment of the scalpel blade as an objective tool for measuring dermatome cut thickness." J Burn Care Res. 2025;46(4):741–745. doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraf067

6. Singh M, Nuutila K, Collins KC, Huang A. "Evolution of skin grafting for treatment of burns: Reverdin pinch grafting to Tanner mesh grafting and beyond." Burns. 2017;43(6):1149–1154. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2017.01.015