Chakravarthy D, Rodway N, Schmidt S, Smith D, Evancho M, Sims R
Department of Chemistry, University of Akron, Ohio.
J Biomed Mater Res. 1994 Oct;28(10):1165-73. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820281007.
Residues from hydrocolloid dressings (HCDs) that originate from matrix disintegration and nonbiodegradability of the absorbent components, may cause deep-seated, unresolved inflammation in tissue that appears otherwise healed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate three new HCDs that were formulated with the goal of attenuating the inflammatory responses that may arise from HCD therapy. Two of the HCDs (A-106 and A-107) consisted of conventional absorbents dispersed in a new maceration-resistant adhesive matrix. The same matrix, mixed with potentially biodegradable dextran microspheres, formed the third dressing (Dextran Bead Dressing [DBD]). In this pilot scale study these novel dressings were evaluated on full-thickness dermal wounds on swine. Restore (Hollister) and DuoDERM CGF (Convatec) dressings were used as controls. Wound healing was evaluated histomorphometrically. Pertinent histologic parameters were ranked from wound tissue that was harvested 18 days after wounding. Grossly visible dressing disintegration ranged from minimal (DBD) to severe (Restore). Disintegration of other dressings was moderate. The percentage of tissue sections exhibiting giant cells reflected, in parallel, the observed extent of dressing disintegration. Thirty-eight percent of wounds dressed with DBD contained giant cells; 74 and 100% of wounds treated with DuoDERM CGF and Restore, respectively, contained giant cells. DBD-dressed wounds had relatively fewer chronic inflammatory cells than other dressings. These wounds were also characterized by a well-organized collagen matrix and complete reepithelialization. The extent of wound closures was similar for all dressing types except Restore. Closure of Restore-dressed wounds was delayed compared with closure with DBD and DuoDERM CGF on all days of evaluation except one. A-106 and A-107 were comparable to DuoDERM CGF in retention of dressing integrity and the elicited inflammatory tissue response. The DBD dressing appears to possess equivalent properties of typical HCDs while causing minimal tissue reactions.
水胶体敷料（HCDs）中的残留物源于基质分解和吸收成分的不可生物降解性，可能会在看似已愈合的组织中引发深层、未解决的炎症。本研究的目的是评估三种新的水胶体敷料，其配方旨在减轻水胶体敷料治疗可能引发的炎症反应。其中两种水胶体敷料（A - 106和A - 107）由分散在新型抗浸渍粘合剂基质中的传统吸收剂组成。相同的基质与潜在可生物降解的葡聚糖微球混合，形成了第三种敷料（葡聚糖珠敷料 [DBD]）。在这项中试规模研究中，这些新型敷料在猪的全层皮肤伤口上进行了评估。Restore（Hollister）和DuoDERM CGF（康维德）敷料用作对照。通过组织形态计量学评估伤口愈合情况。从受伤18天后采集的伤口组织中对相关组织学参数进行排名。肉眼可见的敷料分解程度从最小（DBD）到严重（Restore）不等。其他敷料的分解程度为中等。表现出巨细胞的组织切片百分比与观察到的敷料分解程度平行。用DBD包扎的伤口中有38%含有巨细胞；用DuoDERM CGF和Restore治疗的伤口分别有74%和100%含有巨细胞。与其他敷料相比，用DBD包扎的伤口慢性炎症细胞相对较少。这些伤口的特征还包括组织良好的胶原基质和完全的上皮再形成。除Restore外，所有敷料类型的伤口闭合程度相似。在除一天之外的所有评估日，与用DBD和DuoDERM CGF包扎的伤口相比，用Restore包扎的伤口闭合延迟。A - 106和A - 107在敷料完整性保留和引发的炎症组织反应方面与DuoDERM CGF相当。DBD敷料似乎具有典型水胶体敷料的等效特性，同时引起的组织反应最小。
