Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Some Biological Injected Wound Healing Stimulators and Criteria for Its Evaluation
Received 26 August 2020
Accepted for publication 22 October 2020
Published 12 November 2020 Volume 2020:14 Pages 4869—4883
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Georgios D. Panos
Ekaterina Vladimirovna Silina,1 Natalia Evgenievna Manturova,2 Petr Frantsevich Litvitskiy,3 Victor Aleksandrovich Stupin4
1Department of Human Pathology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119991, Russia; 2Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cosmetology and Cell Technologies, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow 117997, Russia; 3Department of Pathophysiology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119991, Russia; 4Department of Hospital Surgery №1, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow 117997, Russia
Correspondence: Ekaterina Vladimirovna Silina Department of Human Pathology
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Trubetskaya Str, 8, Moscow 119991, Russia
Purpose: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of certain biological injectable stimulants for the healing of skin wounds and criteria for its assessment.
Materials and Methods: A comparative study of the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (SC group), collagen (Collagen group), and deproteinized calf blood hemoderivative (DCBH group) was carried out using an acute wound model. Control wounds were injected with isotonic sodium chloride solution (Control group). A total of four groups (28 wounds per group) were included in the study. Aged male Wistar rats were used as experimental animals. A dynamic assessment of the wound areas and edges, microvasculature assessment via laser Doppler flowmetry, histological and morphometric analyses to determine the quantitative and qualitative fibroblasts composition, as well as the degree of newly synthesized collagen maturity, was conducted on days 0, 3, 7, and 14.
Results: The administration of SCs provided a rapid but short-lasting effect, whereas the administration of collagen resulted in a delayed but long-lasting wound-healing effect. DCBH resulted in little to no effect. An increase in the perfusion volume of the wound edges accelerated the regeneration process, while the level of microcirculation did not affect the number and activity of fibroblasts. The wound healing acceleration, as well as the new collagen and stratified epithelium formation and maturation, was associated with the presence of a sufficient pool of mature and active fibroblasts in the wound, and not with the number of fibroblasts.
Conclusion: The present results clarify the action mechanisms of the studied drugs. In addition, the application purposes and different effects of each drug on the different wound healing phases were demonstrated. An assumption on the multi-component treatment advisability under the wound condition objective assessment possibility was made. Findings from this study may assist clinicians in making an informed transition to personalized wound management and achieve better clinical outcomes.
Keywords: collagen, deproteinized calf blood hemoderivative, mesenchymal stem cell, fibroblast, microhemocirculation, wound
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]