| Literature DB >> 35628318 |
Andréanne Cartier1,2, Martin A Barbier1,2, Danielle Larouche1,2, Amélie Morissette1,2, Ariane Bussières1,2,3, Livia Montalin1,2,3, Chanel Beaudoin Cloutier1,2,3, Lucie Germain1,2.
Abstract
The efficacy of skin substitutes is established for the treatment of burn injuries, but its use is not limited to this condition. This technology has the potential to improve the treatment of various conditions by offering highly advanced and personalized treatments. In vivo studies are challenging but essential to move to clinical use in humans. Mice are the most widely used species in preclinical studies, but the main drawback of this model is the limited surface area of the graft in long-term transplantation studies caused by the displacement and the contraction of the graft. We improved the conventional surgical procedures by stabilizing the chamber covering the graft with intramuscular sutures and by adding a tie-over bolster dressing. The current study was therefore performed to compare outcomes of skin grafts between the conventional and optimized skin graft model. Human self-assembled skin substitutes (SASSs) were prepared and grafted to athymic mice either by the conventional method or by the new grafting method. Graft healing and complications were assessed using digital photographs on postoperative days 7, 14, and 21. Similar structure and organization were observed by histological staining. The new grafting method reduced medium and large displacement events by 1.26-fold and medium and large contraction events by 1.8-fold, leading to a 1.6-fold increase in graft surface area compared to skin substitutes grafted with the usual method. This innovation ensures better reproducibility and consistency of skin substitute transplants on mice.Entities:
Keywords: murine model; skin graft; skin substitutes; tissue engineering
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35628318 PMCID: PMC9141235 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23105507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1SASS surface area over time after grafting. (A) Mean surface area of SASS grafts is improved when the Fusenig’s chamber is secured with intramuscular sutures (IMS) and a bolster dressing is added over the SASS compared to only sutured to mouse skin. N = 2 to 3; n = 3 to 22. Each black point represents the mean and vertical error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Blue points represent each data point for skin substitutes grafted with IMS and bolster whereas green triangles represent each data point for skin substitutes grafted without IMS and without bolster. (B) Surface area of SASSs after grafting, expressed as a percentage of the SASS surface area before grafting. Each black point represents the mean and vertical error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). (C) Representative examples of macroscopic pictures of SASSs grafted on the back of athymic mice with the conventional method (without IMS and without bolster dressing) or with IMS and a bolster. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann–Whitney’s non-parametric test. * p < 0.05; **** p < 0.0001.
Figure 2Qualitative assessment of displacement events following surgery. (A) Displacement of the graft was assessed over time after grafting. For each mouse, the displacement was evaluated (large, medium, or small to no displacement). Results are presented as the percentage of mice in each category 7, 14, and 21 days after grafting. (B) Representative examples of SASS displacement 14 days after grafting on the back of athymic mice.
Figure 3Qualitative assessment of contraction events following surgery. (A) Contraction of the graft was assessed over time after grafting. For each mouse, the contraction was evaluated (large, medium, or small to no displacement). Results are presented as the percentage of mice in each category 7, 14, and 21 days after grafting. (B) Representative examples of SASS contraction 14 days after grafting on the back of athymic mice.
Figure 4Hematoxylin and eosin staining of SASSs harvested 21 days after grafting on the back of athymic mice. (A) Skin substitute grafted without IMS and bolster. (B) Skin substitute grafted with IMS and bolster.
Figure 5Hematoxylin and eosin staining of reconstructed skins after grafting. (A) SASSs were grafted with IMS or with IMS and a bolster and harvested after 10 days. (B) SASSs were grafted with the conventional method (no IMS and no bolster) or with both and harvested after 28 days. (C) SASSs were grafted with IMS and a bolster, and harvested at different time points (10, 14, and 21 days).
Figure 6Schematic view of the two models studied. (A) The conventional method included the fixation of the chamber directly to the skin by simple interrupted cutaneous sutures and no additional dressing is added on the skin graft in the Fusenig’s chamber. (B) The new method included intramuscular sutures for the fixation of the Fusenig’s chamber and the addition of a tie-over bolster dressing to cover the skin graft. (C) Diagram of the upper part of the Fusenig’s chamber which is added after grafting to protect the graft. (D) Without intramuscular stitches the Fusenig’s chamber is not properly secured whereas with (E) intramuscular stitches, the chamber is tightly secured to the muscles limiting displacement.
Figure 7Grafting of SASSs on athymic mice. (A) Surgical procedures are performed in a biological safety cabinet with aseptic technique, and all materials are sterile. (B) The dorsal skin is pulled from the midline with forceps; (C,D) 3 cm2 of skin is excised to produce a full-thickness skin excisional wound; (E) the base of the silicon Fusenig’s chamber is inserted into the wound; (F,G) intramuscular sutures are placed to fix the Fusenig’s chamber on the mouse. (H) The SASS overlayed with the non-adhering dressing is prepared for grafting by cutting out the metal clips used to secure the SASS to the dressing during transportation to surgical room. (I) The SASS and the non-adherent dressing are placed together inside the Fusenig’s chamber, directly on the muscle. (J,K) Sterile gauze is placed on top of the Vaseline gauze and the tie-over threads are passed from inside out of the base of the Fusenig’s chamber to pull the appropriate tension to keep the dressing in place. (L) The tie-over bolster dressing is removed 7–10 days after surgery.