Cargando…

Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Skin substitutes, essential tools for helping close full thickness wounds with minimal scarring, are available in both collagen‐based and synthetic polyurethane constructions. Here we explore fundamental differences between two frequently used skin substitutes and discuss how th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stefanelli, Victoria L., Mintz, Benjamin, Gandhi, Ankur, Smith, Jason
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10394260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1462
_version_ 1785083331648421888
author Stefanelli, Victoria L.
Mintz, Benjamin
Gandhi, Ankur
Smith, Jason
author_facet Stefanelli, Victoria L.
Mintz, Benjamin
Gandhi, Ankur
Smith, Jason
author_sort Stefanelli, Victoria L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Skin substitutes, essential tools for helping close full thickness wounds with minimal scarring, are available in both collagen‐based and synthetic polyurethane constructions. Here we explore fundamental differences between two frequently used skin substitutes and discuss how these differences may impact in vivo performance. METHODS: Polyurethane‐ and collagen‐based matrices were characterized in vitro for pore size via scanning electron microscopy, hydrophobicity via liquid contact angle, conformability via bending angle, and biocompatibility via fibroblast and keratinocyte adhesion and proliferation. These matrices were then evaluated in a full‐thickness excisional pig wound study followed by histological analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using t‐tests or one‐way analysis of variances with Tukey's multiple post hoc comparisons, where appropriate. RESULTS: Average pore diameter in the tested polyurethane matrix was over four times larger than that of the collagen matrix (589 ± 297 µm vs. 132 ± 91 µm). Through liquid contact angle measurement, the collagen matrix (not measurable) was found to be hydrophilic compared to the hydrophobic polyurethane matrix (>90°). The collagen matrix was significantly more conformable than the polyurethane matrix (9 ± 2° vs. 84 ± 5° bending angle, respectively). Fibroblast and keratinocyte adhesion and proliferation assays elucidated a significantly greater ability of both cell types to attach and proliferate on collagen versus polyurethane. While the porcine study showed minimal contraction of either matrix material, histological findings between the two treatments were markedly different. Collagen matrices were associated with early fibroblast infiltration and fibroplasia, whereas polyurethane matrices elicited a strong multinucleated giant cell response and produced a network of comparatively aligned collagen fibrils. CONCLUSIONS: The more favorable in vitro properties of the collagen matrix led to less inflammation and better overall tissue response in vivo. Overall, our findings demonstrate how the choice of biomaterial and its design directly translate to differing in vivo mechanisms of action and overall tissue quality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10394260
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103942602023-08-03 Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study Stefanelli, Victoria L. Mintz, Benjamin Gandhi, Ankur Smith, Jason Health Sci Rep Original Research BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Skin substitutes, essential tools for helping close full thickness wounds with minimal scarring, are available in both collagen‐based and synthetic polyurethane constructions. Here we explore fundamental differences between two frequently used skin substitutes and discuss how these differences may impact in vivo performance. METHODS: Polyurethane‐ and collagen‐based matrices were characterized in vitro for pore size via scanning electron microscopy, hydrophobicity via liquid contact angle, conformability via bending angle, and biocompatibility via fibroblast and keratinocyte adhesion and proliferation. These matrices were then evaluated in a full‐thickness excisional pig wound study followed by histological analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using t‐tests or one‐way analysis of variances with Tukey's multiple post hoc comparisons, where appropriate. RESULTS: Average pore diameter in the tested polyurethane matrix was over four times larger than that of the collagen matrix (589 ± 297 µm vs. 132 ± 91 µm). Through liquid contact angle measurement, the collagen matrix (not measurable) was found to be hydrophilic compared to the hydrophobic polyurethane matrix (>90°). The collagen matrix was significantly more conformable than the polyurethane matrix (9 ± 2° vs. 84 ± 5° bending angle, respectively). Fibroblast and keratinocyte adhesion and proliferation assays elucidated a significantly greater ability of both cell types to attach and proliferate on collagen versus polyurethane. While the porcine study showed minimal contraction of either matrix material, histological findings between the two treatments were markedly different. Collagen matrices were associated with early fibroblast infiltration and fibroplasia, whereas polyurethane matrices elicited a strong multinucleated giant cell response and produced a network of comparatively aligned collagen fibrils. CONCLUSIONS: The more favorable in vitro properties of the collagen matrix led to less inflammation and better overall tissue response in vivo. Overall, our findings demonstrate how the choice of biomaterial and its design directly translate to differing in vivo mechanisms of action and overall tissue quality. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10394260/ /pubmed/37538960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1462 Text en © 2023 Integra LifeSciences. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Stefanelli, Victoria L.
Mintz, Benjamin
Gandhi, Ankur
Smith, Jason
Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study
title Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study
title_full Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study
title_fullStr Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study
title_full_unstemmed Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study
title_short Design matters: A comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: An experimental study
title_sort design matters: a comparison of natural versus synthetic skin substitutes across benchtop and porcine wound healing metrics: an experimental study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10394260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1462
work_keys_str_mv AT stefanellivictorial designmattersacomparisonofnaturalversussyntheticskinsubstitutesacrossbenchtopandporcinewoundhealingmetricsanexperimentalstudy
AT mintzbenjamin designmattersacomparisonofnaturalversussyntheticskinsubstitutesacrossbenchtopandporcinewoundhealingmetricsanexperimentalstudy
AT gandhiankur designmattersacomparisonofnaturalversussyntheticskinsubstitutesacrossbenchtopandporcinewoundhealingmetricsanexperimentalstudy
AT smithjason designmattersacomparisonofnaturalversussyntheticskinsubstitutesacrossbenchtopandporcinewoundhealingmetricsanexperimentalstudy