Cargando…
Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites
Human amniotic membrane (HAM) has been used as a biomaterial in various surgical procedures and exceeds some qualities of common materials. We evaluated HAM as wound dressing for split-thickness skin-graft (STSG) donor sites in a swine model (Part A) and a clinical trial (Part B). Part A: STSG donor...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4070483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25003117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/572183 |
_version_ | 1782322696207466496 |
---|---|
author | Loeffelbein, Denys J. Rohleder, Nils H. Eddicks, Matthias Baumann, Claudia M. Stoeckelhuber, Mechthild Wolff, Klaus-D. Drecoll, Enken Steinstraesser, Lars Hennerbichler, Simone Kesting, Marco R. |
author_facet | Loeffelbein, Denys J. Rohleder, Nils H. Eddicks, Matthias Baumann, Claudia M. Stoeckelhuber, Mechthild Wolff, Klaus-D. Drecoll, Enken Steinstraesser, Lars Hennerbichler, Simone Kesting, Marco R. |
author_sort | Loeffelbein, Denys J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Human amniotic membrane (HAM) has been used as a biomaterial in various surgical procedures and exceeds some qualities of common materials. We evaluated HAM as wound dressing for split-thickness skin-graft (STSG) donor sites in a swine model (Part A) and a clinical trial (Part B). Part A: STSG donor sites in 4 piglets were treated with HAM or a clinically used conventional polyurethane (PU) foil (n = 8 each). Biopsies were taken on days 5, 7, 10, 20, 40, and 60 and investigated immunohistochemically for alpha-smooth muscle actin (αSMA: wound contraction marker), von Willebrand factor (vWF: angiogenesis), Ki-67 (cell proliferation), and laminin (basement membrane integrity). Part B: STSG donor sites in 45 adult patients (16 female/29 male) were treated with HAM covered by PU foam, solely by PU foam, or PU foil/paraffin gauze (n = 15 each). Part A revealed no difference in the rate of wound closure between groups. HAM showed improved esthetic results and inhibitory effects on cicatrization. Angioneogenesis was reduced, and basement membrane formation was accelerated in HAM group. Part B: no difference in re-epithelialization/infection rate was found. HAM caused less ichor exudation and less pruritus. HAM has no relevant advantage over conventional dressings but might be a cost-effective alternative. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4070483 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40704832014-07-07 Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites Loeffelbein, Denys J. Rohleder, Nils H. Eddicks, Matthias Baumann, Claudia M. Stoeckelhuber, Mechthild Wolff, Klaus-D. Drecoll, Enken Steinstraesser, Lars Hennerbichler, Simone Kesting, Marco R. Biomed Res Int Research Article Human amniotic membrane (HAM) has been used as a biomaterial in various surgical procedures and exceeds some qualities of common materials. We evaluated HAM as wound dressing for split-thickness skin-graft (STSG) donor sites in a swine model (Part A) and a clinical trial (Part B). Part A: STSG donor sites in 4 piglets were treated with HAM or a clinically used conventional polyurethane (PU) foil (n = 8 each). Biopsies were taken on days 5, 7, 10, 20, 40, and 60 and investigated immunohistochemically for alpha-smooth muscle actin (αSMA: wound contraction marker), von Willebrand factor (vWF: angiogenesis), Ki-67 (cell proliferation), and laminin (basement membrane integrity). Part B: STSG donor sites in 45 adult patients (16 female/29 male) were treated with HAM covered by PU foam, solely by PU foam, or PU foil/paraffin gauze (n = 15 each). Part A revealed no difference in the rate of wound closure between groups. HAM showed improved esthetic results and inhibitory effects on cicatrization. Angioneogenesis was reduced, and basement membrane formation was accelerated in HAM group. Part B: no difference in re-epithelialization/infection rate was found. HAM caused less ichor exudation and less pruritus. HAM has no relevant advantage over conventional dressings but might be a cost-effective alternative. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014 2014-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4070483/ /pubmed/25003117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/572183 Text en Copyright © 2014 Denys J. Loeffelbein et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Loeffelbein, Denys J. Rohleder, Nils H. Eddicks, Matthias Baumann, Claudia M. Stoeckelhuber, Mechthild Wolff, Klaus-D. Drecoll, Enken Steinstraesser, Lars Hennerbichler, Simone Kesting, Marco R. Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites |
title | Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites |
title_full | Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites |
title_short | Evaluation of Human Amniotic Membrane as a Wound Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites |
title_sort | evaluation of human amniotic membrane as a wound dressing for split-thickness skin-graft donor sites |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4070483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25003117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/572183 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT loeffelbeindenysj evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT rohledernilsh evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT eddicksmatthias evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT baumannclaudiam evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT stoeckelhubermechthild evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT wolffklausd evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT drecollenken evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT steinstraesserlars evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT hennerbichlersimone evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites AT kestingmarcor evaluationofhumanamnioticmembraneasawounddressingforsplitthicknessskingraftdonorsites |