PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Background: Previous studies showed Cell free fat extract (CEFFE) and Platelet rich plasma (PRP) could effectively accelerate wound healing. However, the comparative study on curative effect is still lacking. A systematic comparison could provide more theoretical support and laboratory basis for the clinical application of CEFFE and PRP. Objective: To compare the efficacy of CEFFE and PRP in promoting skin wound repair. Methods: CEFFE and PRP were prepared according to the literature. The wound repair related factors were measured and compared. In vitro, the effects of both on cell migration, proliferation and tube formation were compared. In vivo, wound healing rate was measured on the 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 12th days after skin injury and treatment. Then the specimens were cut off for histological analysis. Results: Although the total protein content of PRP was significantly around 19 times higher than that of CEFFE, there was no statistical difference in the content of BDNF, EGF and VEGF between CEFFE and PRP. Even the NT-3 content of CEFFE was just slightly higher than that of PRP. The concentration of b-FGF, HGF and TGF-β and PDGF-BB in PRP is higher than that in CEFFE, but there is only a very small difference between them. In vitro, PRP showed better efficacy than CEFFE in promoting fibroblast proliferation while there was no significant difference in promoting angiogenesis and fibroblast migration. Both PRP and CEFFE could significantly promote wound healing in mice. There was no statistical difference in wound healing between CEFFE and PRP groups in vivo. Immunohistochemical staining of Ki67&CD31 showed that there was no significant difference between PRP and CEFFE groups. Conclusion: The effect of PRP and CEFFE in promoting wound healing was similar. In clinical practice, the acquisition of PRP is relatively more convenient. Containing no cells, CEFFE has the advantage of easier preservation. For patients who have discarded adipose tissue, or contraindications to PRP technology, CEFFE technology may provide a new option for skin wound repair.
摘要：
背景：以往的研究表明，无细胞脂肪提取物（CEFFE）和富血小板血浆（PRP）可以有效促进伤口愈合。然而,疗效比较研究尚缺乏。系统的比较可以为CEFFE和PRP的临床应用提供更多的理论支持和实验室依据。目的:比较CEFFE与PRP促进皮肤创面修复的疗效。方法：根据文献制备CEFFE和PRP。测量并比较创面修复相关因素。体外，两者对细胞迁移的影响，比较增殖和管形成。在体内,1日测量伤口愈合率，3rd,9th,皮肤损伤和治疗后第12天。然后切除标本进行组织学分析。结果:PRP的总蛋白含量显著高于CEFFE的19倍左右,BDNF含量无统计学差异,CEFFE和PRP之间的EGF和VEGF。甚至CEFFE的NT-3含量也略高于PRP。b-FGF的浓度,PRP中的HGF和TGF-β和PDGF-BB高于CEFFE，但是它们之间只有很小的区别。体外，PRP在促进成纤维细胞增殖方面表现出比CEFFE更好的疗效，而在促进血管生成和成纤维细胞迁移方面没有显着差异。PRP和CEFFE均能显著促进小鼠创面愈合。CEFFE组和PRP组的体内伤口愈合无统计学差异。Ki67和CD31的免疫组织化学染色显示PRP和CEFFE组之间没有显著差异。结论:PRP与CEFFE促进创面愈合的作用相似。在临床实践中,PRP的获取相对更方便。不含细胞，CEFFE具有更容易保存的优点。对于丢弃脂肪组织的患者，或PRP技术的禁忌症，CEFFE技术可能为皮肤创伤修复提供新的选择。
