| Literature DB >> 31511001 |
Fatemeh Davoodi-Roodbordeii1,2, Minoo Afshar1, Fatemeh Haji Abas Tabrizi2, Samira Choopani2, Giti Torkaman3, Fariborz Moayer4, Mona Salimi5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fumaria species (Fumariacea) has traditionally been used in wound healing in Iranian folk medicine. However, with the discovery of newer agents, its use has faded off into total obscurity. This study explored the wound healing potential of a gel containing 10% Fumaria vaillantii Loisel through topical application of total extract in a model of excisional as well as incisional wound healing in albino Wistar rats.Entities:
Keywords: Excision; Fumaria vaillantii; Incision; Topical hydrogel; Wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31511001 PMCID: PMC6739951 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2645-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1Rheological behavior of hydrogel formulation of F.vaillantii total extract using HPMC 4000 cP (2.5%)
Fig. 2Photographs of the macroscopic observations of excision wound on days 6, 10, 14, 21. The rats were subjected to topical administration of F.vaillantii gel extract and gel base
Fig. 3Percentage of wound contraction in the excision wound model upon administration of F. vaillantii gel formulation on different days; a) Day 6, b) Day 10, c) Day 14 and d) Day 21. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 5 animals in each group. *p < 0.05 versus negative control (one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test)
Stress (N/mm2), maximum mechanical strength (fmax,N), absorbed energy (area up to fmax(N × mm)), deformation (mm), stiffness(N/mm) 10 days post wound healing a
| Parameters | Stress (N/mm2) | fmax (N) | Area up to fmax(N × mm) | Deformation (mm) | Stiffness(N/mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups | |||||
| 0.46 ± 0.06 | 19.08 ± 2.40 | 240.8 ± 30.63 | 22.49 ± 2.58 | 1.38 ± 0.15 | |
| Gel base | 0.47 ± 0.05 | 19.99 ± 2.10 | 259.2 ± 53.09 | 23.34 ± 2.46 | 1.36 ± 0.10 |
| Negative control | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 18.03 ± 4.20 | 164.5 ± 68.26 | 14.52 ± 3.65 | 1.29 ± 0.14 |
| Normal skin | 0.77 ± 0.02* | 34.52 ± 3.83* | 600.3 ± 35.91**** | 30.49 ± 1.95** | 1.49 ± 0.15 |
aValues are mean ± SEM of 5 animals in each group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, **** p < 0001 were considered significant compared to negative control group
Fig. 4Microscopic photographs of histopathological evaluation of wound healing in the negative control, gel base and F.vaillantii gel extract administered. Skin sections display H& E stained in epidermis and dermis. The original magnification was 400×. a) Negative control: 21-old-wound tissue; b) Gel base group: 21-old-wound tissue treated with gel base; c),d),e) 21-old-wound tissue treated with F.vaillantii gel extract
Fig. 5Comparison of a) epithelium thickness; b) angiogenesis (n/mm 2); c) number of hair follicles and d) collagen fiber thickness values of F.vaillantii gel extract, gel base and negative control on excision wound model. Values are mean ± SEM of 5 animals in each group. *p < 0.05 was considered significant
Fig. 6Hydroxyproline content (μg/100 mg skin) in different groups. Values represent mean ± SEM of 5 animals in each group