Few comparative studies have been performed on the various wound-dressing materials or methods proposed for use. To clarify the efficacy of wound dressing, 35 patients (17 females, aged 44.8+/-26.86 years and 18 males, aged 35.4+/-29.70) were subjected to a prospective study comparing a polyurethane dressing and a hydrogel dressing for split-thickness skin donors from the lateral thighs. We examined their clinical usefulness such as accelerated healing time, frequency of changing the dressing, degree of pain, or amount of exudates, and performed moisture meter analysis at 1 month and 1 year after re-epithelialization, which reflects the quality of the stratum corneum and subsequent scarring. The polyurethane dressing was superior to hydrogel in the wound healing time, amount of exudates, and frequency of dressing changes: the hydrogel was better for regulating the degree of pain. There was a positive correlation between transepidermal water loss and the effective contact coefficient, which indicates skin barrier function and affected by skin surface electrolytes and reflects water content, in moisture meter analysis (r(2)=0.32, p<0.01). Transepidermal water loss returned to the control level at 1 year after healing with both dressings. The effective contact coefficient of the polyurethane wound was significantly lower than that of hydrogel at 1 month (p<0.01), while both dressing wounds demonstrated significantly higher values at both 1 month and 1 year compared to the control (p<0.01). The polyurethane dressing is therefore superior both clinically and in moisture meter analysis.