IMPORTANCE: Smoking is a known risk to wound healing, but whether electronic cigarettes present the same risk remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of flap necrosis in the e-cigarette vapor-exposed group and the unexposed control and to detect a difference in the rate of flap necrosis between the traditional cigarette smoke-exposed group and the unexposed control. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From March 10, 2018, to May 4, 2018, a cohort study was conducted on 45 male Sprague-Dawley rats at Boston University School of Medicine. Each rat weighed approximately 100 g at the beginning of the study and was randomized to 1 of 3 groups: negative control (n = 15), experimental (exposed to e-cigarette vapor; n = 15), and positive control (exposed to traditional cigarette smoke; n = 15). Rats in the experimental and positive control groups were exposed to electronic cigarette vapor and traditional cigarette smoke in a smoking chamber for 30 minutes twice a day for 30 consecutive days. Levels of serum cotinine were monitored and maintained between 150 ng/mL and 200 ng/mL. After 30 days, random pattern dorsal skin flaps were raised. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Percentage of flap necrosis for each group. RESULTS: All 45 rats survived the surgical procedure and postoperative recovery, and all rats thrived and gained weight over the course of the study. The highest rate of flap necrosis was found in the positive control cohort, with a mean (SD) of 68.7% (8.6%), followed by the experimental cohort, with a mean (SD) of 65.9% (11.8%); the negative control cohort had the least amount of flap necrosis, with a mean (SD) of 50.8% (9.4%). The percentage of flap necrosis in the negative control rats (95% CI, 46.0-55.6; P < .001) was substantially lower than that for both the positive control rats (95% CI, 64.3-73.0; P < .001) and the experimental rats (95% CI, 59.9-71.8; P < .001). No statistically significant difference in flap necrosis was noted between the rats in the experimental cohort and the rats in the positive control cohort (95% CI, 59.9-71.8 vs 95% CI, 64.3-73.0; P = .46). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Smoking and vaping appear to be equally detrimental to wound healing and to be associated with a statistically significant increase in flap necrosis compared with the unexposed group. The results suggest that vaping should not be seen as a better alternative to cigarette smoking in the context of wound healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
IMPORTANCE: Smoking is a known risk to wound healing, but whether electronic cigarettes present the same risk remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of flap necrosis in the e-cigarette vapor-exposed group and the unexposed control and to detect a difference in the rate of flap necrosis between the traditional cigarette smoke-exposed group and the unexposed control. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From March 10, 2018, to May 4, 2018, a cohort study was conducted on 45 male Sprague-Dawley rats at Boston University School of Medicine. Each rat weighed approximately 100 g at the beginning of the study and was randomized to 1 of 3 groups: negative control (n = 15), experimental (exposed to e-cigarette vapor; n = 15), and positive control (exposed to traditional cigarette smoke; n = 15). Rats in the experimental and positive control groups were exposed to electronic cigarette vapor and traditional cigarette smoke in a smoking chamber for 30 minutes twice a day for 30 consecutive days. Levels of serum cotinine were monitored and maintained between 150 ng/mL and 200 ng/mL. After 30 days, random pattern dorsal skin flaps were raised. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Percentage of flap necrosis for each group. RESULTS: All 45 rats survived the surgical procedure and postoperative recovery, and all rats thrived and gained weight over the course of the study. The highest rate of flap necrosis was found in the positive control cohort, with a mean (SD) of 68.7% (8.6%), followed by the experimental cohort, with a mean (SD) of 65.9% (11.8%); the negative control cohort had the least amount of flap necrosis, with a mean (SD) of 50.8% (9.4%). The percentage of flap necrosis in the negative control rats (95% CI, 46.0-55.6; P < .001) was substantially lower than that for both the positive control rats (95% CI, 64.3-73.0; P < .001) and the experimental rats (95% CI, 59.9-71.8; P < .001). No statistically significant difference in flap necrosis was noted between the rats in the experimental cohort and the rats in the positive control cohort (95% CI, 59.9-71.8 vs 95% CI, 64.3-73.0; P = .46). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Smoking and vaping appear to be equally detrimental to wound healing and to be associated with a statistically significant increase in flap necrosis compared with the unexposed group. The results suggest that vaping should not be seen as a better alternative to cigarette smoking in the context of wound healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
Authors: Elizabeth Moses; Teresa Wang; Sean Corbett; George R Jackson; Eduard Drizik; Catalina Perdomo; Claudia Perdomo; Eric Kleerup; Daniel Brooks; George O'Connor; Steven Dubinett; Patrick Hayden; Marc E Lenburg; Avrum Spira Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Anajara Gazzalle; Lourenço Frigeri Teixeira; Alice Cardoso Pellizzari; Fernanda Cocolichio; Juliana Tonietto Zampieri; Daniel Rauber; Luíse S Pezzin; Vanessa D Zago; Jefferson Luis Braga-Silva Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Hiroshi Yamazaki; Kana Horiuchi; Ryohji Takano; Taku Nagano; Makiko Shimizu; Masato Kitajima; Norie Murayama; Fumiaki Shono Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Tushar Singh; René A Arrazola; Catherine G Corey; Corinne G Husten; Linda J Neff; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Shannon G Matta; David J Balfour; Neal L Benowitz; R Thomas Boyd; Jerry J Buccafusco; Anthony R Caggiula; Caroline R Craig; Allan C Collins; M Imad Damaj; Eric C Donny; Phillip S Gardiner; Sharon R Grady; Ulrike Heberlein; Sherry S Leonard; Edward D Levin; Ronald J Lukas; Athina Markou; Michael J Marks; Sarah E McCallum; Neeraja Parameswaran; Kenneth A Perkins; Marina R Picciotto; Maryka Quik; Jed E Rose; Adrian Rothenfluh; William R Schafer; Ian P Stolerman; Rachel F Tyndale; Jeanne M Wehner; Jeffrey M Zirger Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2006-08-09 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Stefanie Scheffler; Hauke Dieken; Olaf Krischenowski; Christine Förster; Detlev Branscheid; Michaela Aufderheide Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 3.390