Gomez Jorge H, Schumacher Jim, Lauten Susan D, Sartin Eva A, Hathcock Terri L, Swaim Steven F
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA.
Can J Vet Res. 2004 Jan;68(1):49-55.
Three biologic dressings [split-thickness allogeneic skin (STS)], allogeneic peritoneum (P), and xenogenic porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS)] were studied to determine their effects on bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction, vascularization, and overall healing and to compare the effects of these dressings with the effects of a nonbiologic dressing, a nonadherent synthetic pad (NASP). A medial wound (3 cm in diameter) and 2 lateral wounds (2 cm in diameter) were created at the junction of the proximal and middle thirds of each metacarpus and metatarsus in 5 horses. Each medial wound and the proximolateral wound received an STS, P, PSIS, or NASP dressing on day 8 after wounding. The other lateral wound received an NASP dressing. Bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction (histologic changes), and drhessing vascularization were evaluated 6 d after application of the dressing. Percentages of contraction and epithelialization, as well as healing time, were determined when the wounds had completely epithelialized. The practical applicability of the different dressings to equine wound management was also assessed. No significant difference was detected in the parameters evaluated among the treated wounds or between the treated and control wounds. The biologic dressings had no effect on infection, inflammatory response, or healing time. Vascularization was not identified in any of the biologic dressings. The PSIS and P dressings required numerous applications over the study period. The STS dressings are more practical than PSIS and P dressings owing to ease of application and stability. Thus, these biologic dressings offer no apparent advantage over a nonbiologic dressing for treatment of small granulating wounds.
研究了三种生物敷料[中厚异体皮(STS)、异体腹膜(P)和异种猪小肠黏膜下层(PSIS)],以确定它们对细菌增殖、炎症反应、血管形成和整体愈合的影响,并将这些敷料的效果与一种非生物敷料——非粘连合成垫(NASP)的效果进行比较。在5匹马的每根掌骨和跖骨近端与中三分之一交界处制造一个内侧伤口(直径3厘米)和两个外侧伤口(直径2厘米)。在受伤后第8天,每个内侧伤口和近端外侧伤口分别接受STS、P、PSIS或NASP敷料。另一个外侧伤口接受NASP敷料。在应用敷料6天后评估细菌增殖、炎症反应(组织学变化)和敷料血管形成。当伤口完全上皮化时,测定收缩和上皮化的百分比以及愈合时间。还评估了不同敷料在马伤口处理中的实际适用性。在治疗的伤口之间或治疗伤口与对照伤口之间,在所评估的参数中未检测到显著差异。生物敷料对感染、炎症反应或愈合时间没有影响。在任何一种生物敷料中均未发现血管形成。在研究期间,PSIS和P敷料需要多次应用。由于易于应用和稳定性,STS敷料比PSIS和P敷料更实用。因此,对于小肉芽伤口的治疗,这些生物敷料与非生物敷料相比没有明显优势。