Literature DB >> 27697888

Do Processing Methods Make a Difference in Acellular Dermal Matrix Properties?

Todd J Nilsen1, Anouska Dasgupta1, Yen-Chen Huang1, Henry Wilson1, Evangelia Chnari1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) has become the standard of practice in many reconstructive and aesthetic surgical applications. Different methods used to prepare the allograft tissue for surgical use can alter the ADMs natural properties. Aseptic processing has been shown to retain the natural properties of ADMs more favorably than terminally sterilized ADMs. Terminal sterilization has been historically linked to alteration of biological materials. In vitro work was conducted to compare ADM processing methods.
OBJECTIVES: Characterize aseptically processed ADMs and compare cell-matrix interaction characteristics to terminally sterilized ADMs.
METHODS: Two aseptically processed ADMs, FlexHD Pliable and BellaDerm, were characterized via histological evaluation, biomechanical integrity, enzymatic degradation, and in vitro cell studies. FlexHD Pliable was compared to Alloderm Ready-to-Use (RTU).
RESULTS: Histological evaluation revealed that FlexHD Pliable had a uniform, open structure compared to BellaDerm. Mechanical characterization demonstrated that BellaDerm had higher strength and stiffness compared to FlexHD Pliable, which maintained higher elasticity. Immunohistochemical analysis verified that key matrix proteins remained intact after aseptic processing. Cell studies found that fibroblasts attached more readily, and proliferated faster on FlexHD Pliable compared to BellaDerm. Additionally, fibroblasts infiltrated into FlexHD Pliable from both sides and on the dermal side in BellaDerm and produced an abundance of multi-layered matrix proteins (collagen, fibronectin) when compared to AlloDerm RTU which was sparse.
CONCLUSIONS: Aseptically processed FlexHD Pliable and BellaDerm provide a suitable, biocompatible option for tissue repair and regeneration in aesthetic and reconstructive surgical applications.
© 2016 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27697888     DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjw163

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthet Surg J        ISSN: 1090-820X            Impact factor:   4.283


  9 in total

1.  Direct comparison of CGCRYODERM and DermACELL in the same patient for outcomes in bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction: a retrospective case series.

Authors:  Sungmi Jeon; Jeong Hyun Ha; Ung Sik Jin
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-07

Review 2.  Minimizing Skin Scarring through Biomaterial Design.

Authors:  Alessandra L Moore; Clement D Marshall; Michael T Longaker
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2017-01-21

3.  Adipose-Derived Neural Stem Cells Combined with Acellular Dermal Matrix as a Neural Conduit Enhances Peripheral Nerve Repair.

Authors:  Wei-Ze Syu; Dueng-Yuan Hueng; Wei-Liang Chen; James Yi-Hsin Chan; Shyi-Gen Chen; Shih-Ming Huang
Journal:  Cell Transplant       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  In Vitro Analysis of Histology, Mechanics, and Safety of Radiation-free Pre-hydrated Human Acellular Dermal Matrix.

Authors:  Ji Young Kim; Kyung Min Yang; Ji Hyun Youn; Heejun Park; Hyung Min Hahn; Il Jae Lee
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 3.588

5.  Human Primary Dermal Fibroblasts Interacting with 3-Dimensional Matrices for Surgical Application Show Specific Growth and Gene Expression Programs.

Authors:  Sarah Grossi; Annalisa Grimaldi; Terenzio Congiu; Arianna Parnigoni; Giampiero Campanelli; Paola Campomenosi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  The Biomechanical Properties of Meshed versus Perforated Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADMs).

Authors:  Keith Sweitzer; Katherine H Carruthers; Lauren Blume; Pankaj Tiwari; Ergun Kocak
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-03-11

Review 7.  Clinical applications of acellular dermal matrices: A review.

Authors:  Kyla Petrie; Cameron T Cox; Benjamin C Becker; Brendan J MacKay
Journal:  Scars Burn Heal       Date:  2022-01-19

8.  Clinical Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix (SimpliDerm and AlloDerm Ready-to-Use) in Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Brian P Tierney; Mauricio De La Garza; George R Jennings; Adam B Weinfeld
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-02-18

9.  Comparison of 30-day Clinical Outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU in Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Brian P Tierney
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-06-16
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.