R A Cetinkaya1, S Yilmaz2, A Ünlü3, P Petrone4,5,6, C Marini7, E Karabulut8, M Urkan9, E Kaya10, K Karabacak11, M Uyanik12, I Eker13, A Kilic14, A Gunal15. 1. Department of Infectious Disease, Sultan Abdulhamid Han Training and Education Hospital, University of Health Science, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Blood and Training Center, Gulhane Training and Education Hospital, University of Health Science, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of War Surgery, Gulhane Training and Education Hospital, University of Health Science, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Department of Surgery, NYU Winthrop Hospital, 222 Station Plaza North, Suite 603, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA. patrizio.petrone@gmail.com. 5. New York Medical College, Valhalla, USA. patrizio.petrone@gmail.com. 6. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain. patrizio.petrone@gmail.com. 7. New York Medical College, Valhalla, USA. 8. Turkish Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Institution, Ankara, Turkey. 9. Department of General Surgery, Gulhane Training and Education Hospital, University of Health Science, Ankara, Turkey. 10. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey. 11. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Gulhane Training and Education Hospital, University of Health Science, Ankara, Turkey. 12. Biochemistry Laboratory, Corlu State Hospital, Tekirdag, Turkey. 13. Department of Pediatrics, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey. 14. Yaman İs OSGB, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey. 15. Department of Pathology, Kırıkkale Yuksek Ihtisas Hospital, Kırıkkale, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The wound healing properties of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) gel have been documented in many studies. PRP gel has also become a promising agent for treating surgical site infections. In this study, we investigated the antibacterial activity and wound healing effectiveness of PRP in an animal model of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus (MRSA N315)-contaminated superficial soft tissue wounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subcutaneous wounds in Wistar Albino male rats were created by making two cm midline incisions followed by inoculation of microorganisms. Study groups comprised of Sham (no treatment), PRP alone, MRSA alone, MRSA + PRP, MRSA + Vancomycin, and MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP groups. We inoculated 0.1 mL (3 × 108 CFU/mL) of MRSA in contaminated groups. After 8 days, all rats were killed, wounds were excised and subjected to histopathologic examination, and MRSA counts were determined. RESULTS: MRSA counts in MRSA, MRSA + PRP, MRSA + Vancomycin and MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP groups were 5.1 × 106 (SD ± 0.4) CFU/mL, 4.3 × 106 (SD ± 0.7) CFU/mL, 2.3 × 106 (SD ± 0.3) CFU/mL, 1.1 × 106 (SD ± 0.4) CFU/mL, respectively. The inflammation scores of MRSA + PRP, MRSA + Vancomycin, and MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP groups were significantly lower than the MRSA group. MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP group inflammation score was significantly lower than the MRSA + PRP group. DISCUSSION: All treatment groups were effective in wound healing and decreasing the MRSA counts. MRSA + PRP combined created identical inflammation scores to the PRP group. More in vivo studies are required to corroborate these findings.
INTRODUCTION: The wound healing properties of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) gel have been documented in many studies. PRP gel has also become a promising agent for treating surgical site infections. In this study, we investigated the antibacterial activity and wound healing effectiveness of PRP in an animal model of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus (MRSA N315)-contaminated superficial soft tissue wounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subcutaneous wounds in Wistar Albino male rats were created by making two cm midline incisions followed by inoculation of microorganisms. Study groups comprised of Sham (no treatment), PRP alone, MRSA alone, MRSA + PRP, MRSA + Vancomycin, and MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP groups. We inoculated 0.1 mL (3 × 108 CFU/mL) of MRSA in contaminated groups. After 8 days, all rats were killed, wounds were excised and subjected to histopathologic examination, and MRSA counts were determined. RESULTS: MRSA counts in MRSA, MRSA + PRP, MRSA + Vancomycin and MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP groups were 5.1 × 106 (SD ± 0.4) CFU/mL, 4.3 × 106 (SD ± 0.7) CFU/mL, 2.3 × 106 (SD ± 0.3) CFU/mL, 1.1 × 106 (SD ± 0.4) CFU/mL, respectively. The inflammation scores of MRSA + PRP, MRSA + Vancomycin, and MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP groups were significantly lower than the MRSA group. MRSA + Vancomycin + PRP group inflammation score was significantly lower than the MRSA + PRP group. DISCUSSION: All treatment groups were effective in wound healing and decreasing the MRSA counts. MRSA + PRP combined created identical inflammation scores to the PRP group. More in vivo studies are required to corroborate these findings.
Authors: Gary A Noskin; Robert J Rubin; Jerome J Schentag; Jan Kluytmans; Edwin C Hedblom; Maartje Smulders; Elizabeth Lapetina; Eric Gemmen Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005 Aug 8-22
Authors: John J Engemann; Yehuda Carmeli; Sara E Cosgrove; Vance G Fowler; Melissa Z Bronstein; Sharon L Trivette; Jane P Briggs; Daniel J Sexton; Keith S Kaye Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2003-02-07 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Wenhai Zhang; Yue Guo; Mitchell Kuss; Wen Shi; Amy L Aldrich; Jason Untrauer; Tammy Kielian; Bin Duan Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 6.389