Cargando…

A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models

INTRODUCTION: A reproducible, standardised model for cutaneous scar tissue to assess therapeutics is crucial to the progress of the field. A systematic review was performed to critically evaluate scarring models in both animal and human research. METHOD: All studies in which cutaneous scars are mode...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mistry, Riyam, Veres, Mark, Issa, Fadi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9073696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35529910
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.711094
_version_ 1784701344333955072
author Mistry, Riyam
Veres, Mark
Issa, Fadi
author_facet Mistry, Riyam
Veres, Mark
Issa, Fadi
author_sort Mistry, Riyam
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: A reproducible, standardised model for cutaneous scar tissue to assess therapeutics is crucial to the progress of the field. A systematic review was performed to critically evaluate scarring models in both animal and human research. METHOD: All studies in which cutaneous scars are modelling in animals or humans were included. Models that were focused on the wound healing process or those in humans with scars from an existing injury were excluded. Ovid Medline(®) was searched on 25 February 2019 to perform two near identical searches; one aimed at animals and the other aimed at humans. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for study selection. Full texts of potentially suitable studies were then obtained for analysis. RESULTS: The animal kingdom search yielded 818 results, of which 71 were included in the review. Animals utilised included rabbits, mice, pigs, dogs and primates. Methods used for creating scar tissue included sharp excision, dermatome injury, thermal injury and injection of fibrotic substances. The search for scar assessment in humans yielded 287 results, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. In all human studies, sharp incision was used to create scar tissue. Some studies focused on patients before or after elective surgery, including bilateral breast reduction, knee replacement or midline sternotomy. DISCUSSION: The rabbit ear scar model was the most popular tool for scar research, although pigs produce scar tissue which most closely resembles that of humans. Immunodeficient mouse models allow for in vivo engraftment and study of human scar tissue, however, there are limitations relating to the systemic response to these xenografts. Factors that determine the use of animals include cost of housing requirements, genetic traceability, and ethical concerns. In humans, surgical patients are often studied for scarring responses and outcomes, but reproducibility and patient factors that impact healing can limit interpretation. Human tissue use in vitro may serve as a good basis to rapidly screen and assess treatments prior to clinical use, with the advantage of reduced cost and setup requirements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9073696
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90736962022-05-07 A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models Mistry, Riyam Veres, Mark Issa, Fadi Front Surg Surgery INTRODUCTION: A reproducible, standardised model for cutaneous scar tissue to assess therapeutics is crucial to the progress of the field. A systematic review was performed to critically evaluate scarring models in both animal and human research. METHOD: All studies in which cutaneous scars are modelling in animals or humans were included. Models that were focused on the wound healing process or those in humans with scars from an existing injury were excluded. Ovid Medline(®) was searched on 25 February 2019 to perform two near identical searches; one aimed at animals and the other aimed at humans. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for study selection. Full texts of potentially suitable studies were then obtained for analysis. RESULTS: The animal kingdom search yielded 818 results, of which 71 were included in the review. Animals utilised included rabbits, mice, pigs, dogs and primates. Methods used for creating scar tissue included sharp excision, dermatome injury, thermal injury and injection of fibrotic substances. The search for scar assessment in humans yielded 287 results, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. In all human studies, sharp incision was used to create scar tissue. Some studies focused on patients before or after elective surgery, including bilateral breast reduction, knee replacement or midline sternotomy. DISCUSSION: The rabbit ear scar model was the most popular tool for scar research, although pigs produce scar tissue which most closely resembles that of humans. Immunodeficient mouse models allow for in vivo engraftment and study of human scar tissue, however, there are limitations relating to the systemic response to these xenografts. Factors that determine the use of animals include cost of housing requirements, genetic traceability, and ethical concerns. In humans, surgical patients are often studied for scarring responses and outcomes, but reproducibility and patient factors that impact healing can limit interpretation. Human tissue use in vitro may serve as a good basis to rapidly screen and assess treatments prior to clinical use, with the advantage of reduced cost and setup requirements. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-04-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9073696/ /pubmed/35529910 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.711094 Text en Copyright © 2022 Mistry, Veres and Issa. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Mistry, Riyam
Veres, Mark
Issa, Fadi
A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models
title A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models
title_full A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models
title_fullStr A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models
title_full_unstemmed A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models
title_short A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models
title_sort systematic review comparing animal and human scarring models
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9073696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35529910
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.711094
work_keys_str_mv AT mistryriyam asystematicreviewcomparinganimalandhumanscarringmodels
AT veresmark asystematicreviewcomparinganimalandhumanscarringmodels
AT issafadi asystematicreviewcomparinganimalandhumanscarringmodels
AT mistryriyam systematicreviewcomparinganimalandhumanscarringmodels
AT veresmark systematicreviewcomparinganimalandhumanscarringmodels
AT issafadi systematicreviewcomparinganimalandhumanscarringmodels