ArticleBioMed research international2021
Inactivated Nevus Tissue with High Hydrostatic Pressure Treatment Used as a Dermal Substitute after a 28-Day Cryopreservation Period.
Article in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of decellularized vascular matrix in small-diameter vascular grafts.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiant 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.
methodsNevus 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.
resultsNo 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.
conclusionCryopreservation 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.