Yoshitaka Matsuura1, Michiharu Sakamoto2, Shuichi Ogino3, Jun Arata4, Naoki Morimoto2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Otsu Red Cross Hospital, Shiga 520-8511, Japan. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Shiga University, Shiga 520-2192, Japan. 4. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center, Kyoto 612-8555, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Giant congenital melanocytic nevi (GCMN) treatment remains controversial. While surgical resection is the best option for complete removal, skin shortage to reconstruct the skin defect remains an issue. We report a novel treatment using a high hydrostatic pressurization (HHP) technique and a cryopreservation procedure. However, cryopreservation may inhibit revascularization of implanted nevus tissue and cultured epidermal autograft (CEA) take. We aimed to investigate the influence of the cryopreservation procedure on the HHP-treated dermis specimen and CEA take on cryopreserved tissue. METHODS: Nevus tissue harvested from a patient with GCMN was inactivated with HHP of 200 MPa and then cryopreserved at -30°C for 28 days. The cryopreserved specimen was compared with fresh (HHP-treated without cryopreservation) tissue and with untreated (without HHP treatment) tissue to evaluate the extracellular matrix, basal membranes, and capillaries. Cultured epidermis (CE) take on the cryopreserved tissue was evaluated following implantation of the cryopreserved nevus tissue with CE into the subcutis of nude mice. RESULTS: No difference was observed between cryopreserved and fresh tissue in terms of collagen or elastic fibers, dermal capillaries, or basement membranes at the epidermal-dermal junction. In 4 of 6 samples (67%), applied CE took on the nevus tissues and regenerated the epidermis in the cryopreserved group compared with 5 of 6 samples (83%) in the fresh group. CONCLUSION: Cryopreservation at -30°C for 28 days did not result in significant damage to inactivated nevus tissue, and applied CE on the cryopreserved nevus tissues took and regenerated the epidermis. Inactivated nevus tissue with HHP can be used as a dermal substitute after 28-day cryopreservation.
BACKGROUND: Giant congenital melanocytic nevi (GCMN) treatment remains controversial. While surgical resection is the best option for complete removal, skin shortage to reconstruct the skin defect remains an issue. We report a novel treatment using a high hydrostatic pressurization (HHP) technique and a cryopreservation procedure. However, cryopreservation may inhibit revascularization of implanted nevus tissue and cultured epidermal autograft (CEA) take. We aimed to investigate the influence of the cryopreservation procedure on the HHP-treated dermis specimen and CEA take on cryopreserved tissue. METHODS: Nevus tissue harvested from a patient with GCMN was inactivated with HHP of 200 MPa and then cryopreserved at -30°C for 28 days. The cryopreserved specimen was compared with fresh (HHP-treated without cryopreservation) tissue and with untreated (without HHP treatment) tissue to evaluate the extracellular matrix, basal membranes, and capillaries. Cultured epidermis (CE) take on the cryopreserved tissue was evaluated following implantation of the cryopreserved nevus tissue with CE into the subcutis of nude mice. RESULTS: No difference was observed between cryopreserved and fresh tissue in terms of collagen or elastic fibers, dermal capillaries, or basement membranes at the epidermal-dermal junction. In 4 of 6 samples (67%), applied CE took on the nevus tissues and regenerated the epidermis in the cryopreserved group compared with 5 of 6 samples (83%) in the fresh group. CONCLUSION: Cryopreservation at -30°C for 28 days did not result in significant damage to inactivated nevus tissue, and applied CE on the cryopreserved nevus tissues took and regenerated the epidermis. Inactivated nevus tissue with HHP can be used as a dermal substitute after 28-day cryopreservation.
Authors: J U Ostertag; P J F Quaedvlieg; F E M J Kerckhoffs; A H M Vermeulen; M J O E Bertleff; A W Venema; S van der Geer; G A M Krekels Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: J L Michel; V Laborde-Milaa Roux; Y Chavrier; V Roux; H Metafiot; F Chalencon; F Cambazard Journal: Ann Dermatol Venereol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 0.777