Cargando…
Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation
BACKGROUND: Studies had shown the benefit of PRFM and PRP in wound healing but their use in skin graft healing was rarely studied. This study aims to compare the use of PRP and PRFM in accelerating wound healing process of skin full-thickness skin graft (FTSG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five pigs were...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8122151/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34026107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102350 |
_version_ | 1783692527090532352 |
---|---|
author | Reksodiputro, Mirta Hediyati Harahap, Alida Roswita Siregar, Nurjati Chairani Malik, Safarina Golfiani Bashirudin, Jenny Boesoirie, Muhammad Thaufiq Siddiq Widodo, Dini Widiarni Iljanto, Sandi Sajuthi, Dondin Sukrisman, Lugyanti Yosia, Mikhael |
author_facet | Reksodiputro, Mirta Hediyati Harahap, Alida Roswita Siregar, Nurjati Chairani Malik, Safarina Golfiani Bashirudin, Jenny Boesoirie, Muhammad Thaufiq Siddiq Widodo, Dini Widiarni Iljanto, Sandi Sajuthi, Dondin Sukrisman, Lugyanti Yosia, Mikhael |
author_sort | Reksodiputro, Mirta Hediyati |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Studies had shown the benefit of PRFM and PRP in wound healing but their use in skin graft healing was rarely studied. This study aims to compare the use of PRP and PRFM in accelerating wound healing process of skin full-thickness skin graft (FTSG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five pigs were used to look at the wound healing effect of PRP and PRFM usage prior to FTSG implantation. Subsequent punch biopsies were then conducted on the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 30th day to obtain samples for macroscopic (skin color), extracellular matrix (collagen), microscopic (PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast), and ELISA (TGFβ1 and PDGF) analysis to determine the level of wound healing activity. ImageJ software was used to photograph for macroscopic and extracellular matrix analysis. RESULTS: Macroscopic, extracellular matrix, and ELISA evaluation show no significant difference in FTSG survival rates for all treatment groups. Microscopic examination showed an increase in PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast levels with PRFM application showing higher increases in all observed microscopic variables compared to PRP and control. CONCLUSION: This study observed that both PRFM and PRP as autologous platelet preparation accelerate wound healing in FTSG, with PRFM being superior due to the higher number of PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8122151 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81221512021-05-21 Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation Reksodiputro, Mirta Hediyati Harahap, Alida Roswita Siregar, Nurjati Chairani Malik, Safarina Golfiani Bashirudin, Jenny Boesoirie, Muhammad Thaufiq Siddiq Widodo, Dini Widiarni Iljanto, Sandi Sajuthi, Dondin Sukrisman, Lugyanti Yosia, Mikhael Ann Med Surg (Lond) Experimental Research BACKGROUND: Studies had shown the benefit of PRFM and PRP in wound healing but their use in skin graft healing was rarely studied. This study aims to compare the use of PRP and PRFM in accelerating wound healing process of skin full-thickness skin graft (FTSG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five pigs were used to look at the wound healing effect of PRP and PRFM usage prior to FTSG implantation. Subsequent punch biopsies were then conducted on the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 30th day to obtain samples for macroscopic (skin color), extracellular matrix (collagen), microscopic (PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast), and ELISA (TGFβ1 and PDGF) analysis to determine the level of wound healing activity. ImageJ software was used to photograph for macroscopic and extracellular matrix analysis. RESULTS: Macroscopic, extracellular matrix, and ELISA evaluation show no significant difference in FTSG survival rates for all treatment groups. Microscopic examination showed an increase in PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast levels with PRFM application showing higher increases in all observed microscopic variables compared to PRP and control. CONCLUSION: This study observed that both PRFM and PRP as autologous platelet preparation accelerate wound healing in FTSG, with PRFM being superior due to the higher number of PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast. Elsevier 2021-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8122151/ /pubmed/34026107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102350 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Experimental Research Reksodiputro, Mirta Hediyati Harahap, Alida Roswita Siregar, Nurjati Chairani Malik, Safarina Golfiani Bashirudin, Jenny Boesoirie, Muhammad Thaufiq Siddiq Widodo, Dini Widiarni Iljanto, Sandi Sajuthi, Dondin Sukrisman, Lugyanti Yosia, Mikhael Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation |
title | Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation |
title_full | Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation |
title_fullStr | Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation |
title_short | Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation |
title_sort | comparison between prp and prfm on ftsg healing profile: macroscopic, microscopic and elisa evaluation |
topic | Experimental Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8122151/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34026107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102350 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT reksodiputromirtahediyati comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT harahapalidaroswita comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT siregarnurjatichairani comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT maliksafarinagolfiani comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT bashirudinjenny comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT boesoiriemuhammadthaufiqsiddiq comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT widododiniwidiarni comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT iljantosandi comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT sajuthidondin comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT sukrismanlugyanti comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation AT yosiamikhael comparisonbetweenprpandprfmonftsghealingprofilemacroscopicmicroscopicandelisaevaluation |