Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36459148›Full record

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.

Bronwyn L Dearman, Steven T Boyce, John E Greenwood

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bronwyn L DearmanSkin Engineering Laboratory, Adult Burns Centre, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8804-8401
Steven T BoyceDepartment of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7683-7646
John E GreenwoodAdult Burns Centre, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Royal Adelaide Hospital · AUUniversity of Cincinnati · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Skin, ArtificialWound HealingAnimalsCollagenReproducibility of ResultsSkinSkin TransplantationSwineCollagenbiopolymersburnsporcine wound modelscaffoldsskin substitutes

Identifiers

PMID36459148
PMCPMC10107251
OpenAlexW4310602520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.