Limits...
A Translational Animal Model for Scar Compression Therapy Using an Automated Pressure Delivery System.

Alkhalil A, Tejiram S, Travis TE, Prindeze NJ, Carney BC, Moffatt LT, Johnson LS, Ramella-Roman J, Shupp JW - Eplasty (2015)

Bottom Line: Gross scar examination by the Vancouver Scar Scale showed significant and sustained (>4 weeks) improvement in pressure-treated scars (P < .05).Histological examination of pressure-treated scars showed a significant decrease in dermal thickness compared with other groups (P < .05).Cellular quantification showed differential changes among treatment groups.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Firefighters' Burn and Surgical Research Laboratory, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC.

ABSTRACT

Background: Pressure therapy has been used to prevent and treat hypertrophic scars following cutaneous injury despite the limited understanding of its mechanism of action and lack of established animal model to optimize its usage.

Objectives: The aim of this work was to test and characterize a novel automated pressure delivery system designed to deliver steady and controllable pressure in a red Duroc swine hypertrophic scar model.

Methods: Excisional wounds were created by dermatome on 6 red Duroc pigs and allowed to scar while assessed weekly via gross visual inspection, laser Doppler imaging, and biopsy. A portable novel automated pressure delivery system was mounted on developing scars (n = 6) for 2 weeks.

Results: The device maintained a pressure range of 30 ± 4 mm Hg for more than 90% of the 2-week treatment period. Pressure readings outside this designated range were attributed to normal animal behavior and responses to healing progression. Gross scar examination by the Vancouver Scar Scale showed significant and sustained (>4 weeks) improvement in pressure-treated scars (P < .05). Histological examination of pressure-treated scars showed a significant decrease in dermal thickness compared with other groups (P < .05). Pressure-treated scars also showed increased perfusion by laser Doppler imaging during the treatment period compared with sham-treated and untreated scars (P < .05). Cellular quantification showed differential changes among treatment groups.

Conclusion: These results illustrate the applications of this technology in hypertrophic scar Duroc swine model and the evaluation and optimization of pressure therapy in wound-healing and hypertrophic scar management.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Direct gross comparison of scars before and after the treatment period (a). The difference in the thickness of the skin in a pressure-treated scar and sham-treated scar from the same animal after sacrifice (b).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4492193&req=5

Figure 4: Direct gross comparison of scars before and after the treatment period (a). The difference in the thickness of the skin in a pressure-treated scar and sham-treated scar from the same animal after sacrifice (b).

Mentions: Pressure-treated scars showed clear differences at day 84 postwounding compared with pretreated scar at day 70 or relative to sham-treated scars at day 84. These differences primarily encompassed the pliability, height, and vascularity parameters of the VSS (Tables 2 and 3). Pressure-treated scars consistently showed significantly lower total VSS values during the treatment period (P < .05; Tables 2 and 3, Fig 4). Continuous observation of scar development for 4 weeks after removal of pressure showed persistently lower VSS values in pressure-treated HTS compared with sham (Fig 5).


A Translational Animal Model for Scar Compression Therapy Using an Automated Pressure Delivery System.

Alkhalil A, Tejiram S, Travis TE, Prindeze NJ, Carney BC, Moffatt LT, Johnson LS, Ramella-Roman J, Shupp JW - Eplasty (2015)

Direct gross comparison of scars before and after the treatment period (a). The difference in the thickness of the skin in a pressure-treated scar and sham-treated scar from the same animal after sacrifice (b).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4492193&req=5

Figure 4: Direct gross comparison of scars before and after the treatment period (a). The difference in the thickness of the skin in a pressure-treated scar and sham-treated scar from the same animal after sacrifice (b).
Mentions: Pressure-treated scars showed clear differences at day 84 postwounding compared with pretreated scar at day 70 or relative to sham-treated scars at day 84. These differences primarily encompassed the pliability, height, and vascularity parameters of the VSS (Tables 2 and 3). Pressure-treated scars consistently showed significantly lower total VSS values during the treatment period (P < .05; Tables 2 and 3, Fig 4). Continuous observation of scar development for 4 weeks after removal of pressure showed persistently lower VSS values in pressure-treated HTS compared with sham (Fig 5).

Bottom Line: Gross scar examination by the Vancouver Scar Scale showed significant and sustained (>4 weeks) improvement in pressure-treated scars (P < .05).Histological examination of pressure-treated scars showed a significant decrease in dermal thickness compared with other groups (P < .05).Cellular quantification showed differential changes among treatment groups.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Firefighters' Burn and Surgical Research Laboratory, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC.

ABSTRACT

Background: Pressure therapy has been used to prevent and treat hypertrophic scars following cutaneous injury despite the limited understanding of its mechanism of action and lack of established animal model to optimize its usage.

Objectives: The aim of this work was to test and characterize a novel automated pressure delivery system designed to deliver steady and controllable pressure in a red Duroc swine hypertrophic scar model.

Methods: Excisional wounds were created by dermatome on 6 red Duroc pigs and allowed to scar while assessed weekly via gross visual inspection, laser Doppler imaging, and biopsy. A portable novel automated pressure delivery system was mounted on developing scars (n = 6) for 2 weeks.

Results: The device maintained a pressure range of 30 ± 4 mm Hg for more than 90% of the 2-week treatment period. Pressure readings outside this designated range were attributed to normal animal behavior and responses to healing progression. Gross scar examination by the Vancouver Scar Scale showed significant and sustained (>4 weeks) improvement in pressure-treated scars (P < .05). Histological examination of pressure-treated scars showed a significant decrease in dermal thickness compared with other groups (P < .05). Pressure-treated scars also showed increased perfusion by laser Doppler imaging during the treatment period compared with sham-treated and untreated scars (P < .05). Cellular quantification showed differential changes among treatment groups.

Conclusion: These results illustrate the applications of this technology in hypertrophic scar Duroc swine model and the evaluation and optimization of pressure therapy in wound-healing and hypertrophic scar management.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus