Archives of Craniofacial Surgery (대한두개안면성형외과학회지)

Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (대한두개안면성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Wound healing effect of regenerated oxidized cellulose versus fibrin sealant patch: An in vivo study

  • Yoon, Hyun Sik (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wonkwang University Hospital) ;
  • Na, Young Cheon (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wonkwang University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Keum Ha (Department of Pathology, Wonkwang University Hospital) ;
  • Huh, Woo Hoe (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wonkwang University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Ji Min (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wonkwang University Hospital)
  • Received : 2019.09.11
  • Accepted : 2019.10.17
  • Published : 2019.10.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Topical hemostatic agents are used when ligation, electrocauterization, or other conventional hemostatic methods are impractical. Because a hemostatic agent is a foreign body, it can cause foreign body reactions, inflammation, and infections that can interfere with the wound healing process. Therefore, we should select hemostatic agents after considering their effects on wound healing. Here, we compared the effects of hemostatic agents on wound healing in a rectus abdominis muscle defect in rats. Methods: Twelve Sprague Dawley rats were subjected to creation of a $6{\times}6mm$ defect in the rectus abdominis muscle and divided into four groups: control group; group A, Tachosil fibrin sealant patch; group B, Surgicel Fibrillar oxidized regenerated cellulose; and group C, Surgicel Snow oxidized regenerated cellulose. For the histologic analysis, biopsies were performed on the 3rd, 7th, and 27th days. Results: The foreign body reaction was the weakest in group A and most significant in group C. The inflammatory cell infiltration was the weakest in group A and similar in groups B and C. Muscle regeneration differed among periods. The rats in group A were the most active initially, while those in group C showed prolonged activity. Conclusion: Tachosil and Surgicel administration increased inflammation via foreign body reactions, but the overall wound healing process was not significantly affected. The increased inflammation in the Surgicel groups was due to a low pH. We recommend using Tachosil, because it results in less intense foreign body reactions than Surgicel and faster wound healing due to the fibrin action.

Keywords

References

  1. Samudrala S. Topical hemostatic agents in surgery: a surgeon's perspective. AORN J 2008;88:S2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(08)00586-3
  2. Tomizawa Y. Clinical benefits and risk analysis of topical hemostats: a review. J Artif Organs 2005;8:137-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-005-0296-x
  3. Rickenbacher A, Breitenstein S, Lesurtel M, Frilling A. Efficacy of TachoSil a fibrin-based haemostat in different fields of surgery: a systematic review. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2009;9:897-907. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712590903029172
  4. Vidinsky B, Gal P, Toporcer T, Longauer F, Lenhardt L, Bobrov N, et al. Histological study of the first seven days of skin wound healing in rats. Acta Vet Brno 2006;75:197-202. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200675020197
  5. Amin ZA, Ali HM, Alshawsh MA, Darvish PH, Abdulla MA. Application of Antrodia camphorata promotes rat's wound healing in vivo and facilitates fibroblast cell proliferation in vitro. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2015;2015:317693.
  6. Gupta A, Kumar P. Assessment of the histological state of the healing wound. Plast Aesthet Res 2015;2:239-42. https://doi.org/10.4103/2347-9264.158862
  7. Laurens N, Koolwijk P, de Maat MP. Fibrin structure and wound healing. J Thromb Haemost 2006;4:932-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01861.x
  8. Lazarus GS, Cooper DM, Knighton DR, Margolis DJ, Pecoraro RE, Rodeheaver G, et al. Definitions and guidelines for assessment of wounds and evaluation of healing. Arch Dermatol 1994;130:489-93. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1994.01690040093015
  9. Achneck HE, Sileshi B, Jamiolkowski RM, Albala DM, Shapiro ML, Lawson JH. A comprehensive review of topical hemostatic agents: efficacy and recommendations for use. Ann Surg 2010;251:217-28. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c3bcca
  10. Spangler D, Rothenburger S, Nguyen K, Jampani H, Weiss S, Bhende S. In vitro antimicrobial activity of oxidized regenerated cellulose against antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003;4:255-62. https://doi.org/10.1089/109629603322419599
  11. Pierce A, Wilson D, Wiebkin O. Surgicel: macrophage processing of the fibrous component. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;16:338-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(87)80156-X
  12. Soares LP, Oliveira MG, Pinheiro AL, Fronza BR, Maciel ME. Effects of laser therapy on experimental wound healing using oxidized regenerated cellulose hemostat. Photomed Laser Surg 2008;26:10-3. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2007.2115
  13. Dineen P. The effect of oxidized regenerated cellulose on experimental infected splenotomies. J Surg Res 1977;23:114-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4804(77)90198-6
  14. Olson RA, Roberts DL, Osbon DB. A comparative study of polylactic acid, Gelfoam, and Surgicel in healing extraction sites. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53:441-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(82)90453-4
  15. Spotnitz WD. Commercial fibrin sealants in surgical care. Am J Surg 2001;182(2 Suppl):8S-14S. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00771-1
  16. Matras H. The use of fibrin sealant in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1982;40:617-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(82)90108-2
  17. Spotnitz WD, Falstrom JK, Rodeheaver GT. The role of sutures and fibrin sealant in wound healing. Surg Clin North Am 1997;77:651-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70573-9

Cited by

  1. Effects of Prostaglandin E1 and Supplemental Oxygen on the Wound Healing vol.17, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.22467/jwmr.2021.01613
  2. Harnessing Multifaceted Next-Generation Technologies for Improved Skin Wound Healing vol.4, pp.11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.1c00880