ArticleWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2023
Comparison of biopolymer scaffolds for the fabrication of skin substitutes in a porcine wound model.
Article in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study of the Effectiveness of Skin Restoration Using a Biopolymer Hydrogel Scaffold with Encapsulated Mesenchymal Stem Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Long-Term Histological Evaluation of a Novel Dermal Template in the Treatment of Pediatric Burns.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of biopolymer scaffolds for the fabrication of skin substitutes in a porcine wound model.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared three acellular scaffolds as templates for the fabrication of skin substitutes. A collagen-glycosaminoglycan (C-GAG), a biodegradable polyurethane foam (PUR) and a hybrid combination (PUR/C-GAG) were investigated. Scaffolds were prepared for cell inoculation. Fibroblasts and keratinocytes were serially inoculated onto the scaffolds and co-cultured for 14 days before transplantation. Three pigs each received four full-thickness 8 cm × 8 cm surgical wounds, into which a biodegradable temporising matrix (BTM) was implanted. Surface seals were removed after integration (28 days), and three laboratory-generated skin analogues and a control split-thickness skin graft (STSG) were applied for 16 weeks. Punch biopsies confirmed engraftment and re-epithelialisation. Biophysical wound parameters were also measured and analysed. All wounds showed greater than 80% epithelialisation by day 14 post-transplantation. The control STSG displayed 44% contraction over the 16 weeks, and the test scaffolds, C-GAG 64%, Hybrid 66.7% and PUR 67.8%. Immunohistochemistry confirmed positive epidermal keratins and basement membrane components (Integrin alpha-6, collagens IV and VII). Collagen deposition and fibre organisation indicated the degree of fibrosis and scar produced for each graft. All scaffold substitutes re-epithelialised by 4 weeks. The percentage of original wound area for the Hybrid and PUR was significantly different than the STSG and C-GAG, indicating the importance of scaffold retainment within the first 3 months post-transplant. The PUR/C-GAG scaffolds reduced the polymer pore size, assisting cell retention and reducing the contraction of in vitro collagen. Further investigation is required to ensure reproducibility and scale-up feasibility.
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.