未经证实:急性皮肤创伤可能损害皮肤屏障,有感染的危险.小肠粘膜下层(SIS)广泛用于治疗急性和慢性伤口。然而,SIS加速伤口愈合的功效仍需提高以满足临床需求。为了解决这个问题,富血小板血浆(PRP)由于其促进增殖的效力而被使用,靶细胞的迁移和粘附。在这项研究中,我们将PRP和SIS应用于皮肤伤口,通过评估再上皮化来探讨它们对伤口愈合的影响,胶原蛋白生产,血管生成和炎症反应。
未经鉴定:在小鼠中建立了1×1-cm的全层皮肤缺损。将60只小鼠分为四个治疗组:PRPSIS,PRP,SIS和控制。在手术后第3、5、7、10和14天,收集组织标本。苏木精和曙红,马森的三色,免疫组织化学和免疫荧光双重染色用于显示表皮厚度,胶原蛋白和血管再生和炎症。
UNASSIGNED:PRP和PRP+SIS组的伤口收缩明显更大,与其他群体相比,手术后第3天和第5天。组织学分析显示在第7天PRP和PRP+SIS组中更高的胶原表达,这与第14天更厚的表皮层相关。此外,免疫组化染色显示CD31阳性血管和血管内皮生长因子在PRP+SIS和PRP组的表达明显增高,与对照组相比。此外,免疫荧光双染色显示PRP+SIS和PRP组的M1和M2巨噬细胞数量较高,与对照组和单独的SIS组相比,在第三天。然而,在第7天,PRPSIS和PRP组的M1巨噬细胞数量急剧下降。PRP+SIS和PRP组M2与M1巨噬细胞的比例分别是对照组的3.97和2.93倍,是SIS组的4.56和3.37倍,分别。
UNASSIGNED:SIS和PRP共同给药对促进血管生成具有更好的作用,在管理急性伤口愈合中,上皮再形成和胶原蛋白再生比单独使用任何一种药物。
UNASSIGNED: Acute skin wounds may compromise the skin barrier, posing a risk of infection. Small intestinal submucosa (SIS) is widely used to treat acute and chronic wounds. However, the efficacy of SIS to accelerate wound healing still needs to be improved to meet clinical demands. To tackle this problem, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is used due to its potency to promote proliferation, migration and adhesion of target cells. In this study, we applied PRP and SIS to skin wounds to explore their effects on wound healing by evaluating re-epithelialization, collagen production, angiogenesis and the inflammatory response.
UNASSIGNED: A 1 × 1-cm full-thickness skin defect was established in mice. Sixty mice were divided into four treatment groups: PRP + SIS, PRP, SIS and control. On days 3, 5, 7, 10 and 14 post-surgery, tissue specimens were harvested. Haematoxylin and eosin, Masson\'s trichrome, immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence double staining were used to visualize epidermal thickness, collagen and vascular regeneration and inflammation.
UNASSIGNED: Wound contraction in the PRP and PRP + SIS groups was significantly greater, compared with the other groups, on days 3 and 5 post-surgery. A histological analysis showed higher collagen expression in the PRP and PRP + SIS groups on day 7, which was associated with a thicker epidermal layer on day 14. In addition, immunohistochemical staining showed that CD31-positive blood vessels and vascular endothelial growth factor expression in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups were significantly higher, compared with the control group. Furthermore, immunofluorescence double staining showed that the number of M1 and M2 macrophages in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups was higher, compared with the control and SIS groups alone, on day 3. However, on day 7, the number of M1 macrophages dramatically decreased in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups. The ratio of M2 to M1 macrophages in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups was 3.97 and 2.93 times that of the control group and 4.56 and 3.37 times that of the SIS group, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Co-administration of SIS and PRP has a better effect on promoting angiogenesis, re-epithelialization and collagen regeneration in managing acute wound healing than either agent alone.