BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We have developed a light-activated method called photochemical tissue bonding (PTB) for closing wounds using green light and a photosensitizing dye (Rose Bengal-RB) to initiate photochemical crosslinking of wound surface proteins. These studies were designed to determine whether RB causes phototoxicity during closure of skin incisions with PTB. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: RB phototoxicity was evaluated after sealing incisions in porcine skin ex vivo and rabbit skin in vivo using PTB (1 mM RB, 100 J/cm(2), 532 nm, 0.3 or 0.5 W/cm(2).) Dead cells were identified by pyknotic nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm on H&E-stained sections. The influence on RB phototoxicity of penetration of RB into the wound wall (by confocal microscopy), RB concentration in the tissue (by extraction), and fluence of 532 nm reaching depths in skin (calculated from skin optical properties) were investigated. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the percent dead cells in PTB-treated and control incisions in porcine skin at 24 hours or in rabbit skin at 2 hours and 3 and 7 days after surgery. RB was retained in a approximately 100 microm wide band next to the wound wall. The mean RB concentration within this band was 0.42+/-0.03 mM. Monte Carlo modeling of light distribution indicated that the fluence rate decreased from the subsurface peak to 0.5 W/cm(2) in the mid-dermis (approximately 350 microm.) In vitro RB phototoxicity to dermal fibroblasts yielded an LD(50) of 0.50+/-0.09 J/cm(2) when the cells contained 0.46 mM RB. CONCLUSIONS: PTB does not cause phototoxicity when used to repair skin wounds even though the RB concentration and 532 nm fluence in the mid-dermis during PTB are much greater than the LD(50) for RB phototoxicity in vitro. These results indicate that phototoxicity is not a concern when using PTB for tissue repair.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We have developed a light-activated method called photochemical tissue bonding (PTB) for closing wounds using green light and a photosensitizing dye (Rose Bengal-RB) to initiate photochemical crosslinking of wound surface proteins. These studies were designed to determine whether RB causes phototoxicity during closure of skin incisions with PTB. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS:RB phototoxicity was evaluated after sealing incisions in porcine skin ex vivo and rabbit skin in vivo using PTB (1 mM RB, 100 J/cm(2), 532 nm, 0.3 or 0.5 W/cm(2).) Dead cells were identified by pyknotic nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm on H&E-stained sections. The influence on RB phototoxicity of penetration of RB into the wound wall (by confocal microscopy), RB concentration in the tissue (by extraction), and fluence of 532 nm reaching depths in skin (calculated from skin optical properties) were investigated. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the percent dead cells in PTB-treated and control incisions in porcine skin at 24 hours or in rabbit skin at 2 hours and 3 and 7 days after surgery. RB was retained in a approximately 100 microm wide band next to the wound wall. The mean RB concentration within this band was 0.42+/-0.03 mM. Monte Carlo modeling of light distribution indicated that the fluence rate decreased from the subsurface peak to 0.5 W/cm(2) in the mid-dermis (approximately 350 microm.) In vitro RB phototoxicity to dermal fibroblasts yielded an LD(50) of 0.50+/-0.09 J/cm(2) when the cells contained 0.46 mM RB. CONCLUSIONS:PTB does not cause phototoxicity when used to repair skin wounds even though the RB concentration and 532 nm fluence in the mid-dermis during PTB are much greater than the LD(50) for RB phototoxicity in vitro. These results indicate that phototoxicity is not a concern when using PTB for tissue repair.
Authors: Nora Lang; Maria J Pereira; Yuhan Lee; Ingeborg Friehs; Nikolay V Vasilyev; Eric N Feins; Klemens Ablasser; Eoin D O'Cearbhaill; Chenjie Xu; Assunta Fabozzo; Robert Padera; Steve Wasserman; Franz Freudenthal; Lino S Ferreira; Robert Langer; Jeffrey M Karp; Pedro J del Nido Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Daniel Cherfan; E Eri Verter; Samir Melki; Thomas E Gisel; Francis J Doyle; Giuliano Scarcelli; Seok Hyun Yun; Robert W Redmond; Irene E Kochevar Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jonathan R Soucy; Ehsan Shirzaei Sani; Roberto Portillo Lara; David Diaz; Felipe Dias; Anthony S Weiss; Abigail N Koppes; Ryan A Koppes; Nasim Annabi Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Antonio Lauto; Marcus Stoodley; Matthew Barton; John W Morley; David A Mahns; Leonardo Longo; Damia Mawad Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Ashwini A Ghogare; Joann M Miller; Bikash Mondal; Alan M Lyons; Keith A Cengel; Theresa M Busch; Alexander Greer Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Asheesh Gupta; Pinar Avci; Magesh Sadasivam; Rakkiyappan Chandran; Nivaldo Parizotto; Daniela Vecchio; Wanessa C M A de Melo; Tianhong Dai; Long Y Chiang; Michael R Hamblin Journal: Biotechnol Adv Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 14.227
Authors: Antonio Lauto; Damia Mawad; Matthew Barton; Abhishek Gupta; Sabine C Piller; James Hook Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 2.819