| Literature DB >> 32710584 |
Francesco Segreto1, Simone Carotti2, Giovanni Francesco Marangi1, Maria Francesconi2, Luca Scaramuzzino3, Marco Gratteri1, Erika Caldaria1, Sergio Morini2, Paolo Persichetti1.
Abstract
Reconstruction of chronic ulcers is often hampered by lack of local tissues and poor general conditions. Conservative approaches with debridement and advanced medications, such as polyurethane foam, stand as mainstays. However, the healing process is often slow, thus increasing the risk for infection or other complications. In such cases, porcine dermis (PD) and polynucleotides-added hyaluronic acid (PAHA) were previously reported to accelerate healing. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of PD, PAHA and polyurethane foam in chronic ulcers. Thirty patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: group 1 was treated with advanced medications, group 2 with PD, group 3 with PAHA. Standardised photographs and biopsies were taken before treatment and at 30-day follow-up. Photographs were processed to calculate the wound area. Specimens were stained with Haematoxylin/Eosin, Masson trichrome, and immunohistochemically for CD34, alpha-Smooth Muscle Actin (α-SMA), Collagen types I and III, Ki67. The re-epithelialized area was larger in patients treated with PD and PAHA compared with those treated with polyurethane foam (P < .05 and P < .01, respectively). Specimens from patients treated with PD and PAHA showed a higher number of myofibroblasts (α-SMA+, P < .01), neo-angiogenesis (CD34+, P < .01), proliferating dermal cells (Ki67+, P < .01), proliferating keratinocytes (Ki67+, P < .01) and collagen type 1 deposition (P < .05). No difference was found between PD and PAHA. PD and PAHA proved to be more effective than polyurethane foam in the treatment of chronic ulcers. These approaches are a versatile and reliable option to address such cases.Entities:
Keywords: chronic wounds; dermal substitutes; hyaluronic acid; polynucleotides; porcine dermis; ulcer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32710584 PMCID: PMC7948890 DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Wound J ISSN: 1742-4801 Impact factor: 3.315