Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Some Biological Injected Wound Healing Stimulators and Criteria for Its Evaluation

Ekaterina Vladimirovna Silina; Natalia Evgenievna Manturova; Petr Frantsevich Litvitskiy; Victor Aleksandrovich Stupin

doi:10.2147/DDDT.S277047

Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Some Biological Injected Wound Healing Stimulators and Criteria for Its Evaluation

Drug Des Devel Ther. 2020 Nov 12:14:4869-4883. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S277047. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Ekaterina Vladimirovna Silina¹, Natalia Evgenievna Manturova², Petr Frantsevich Litvitskiy³, Victor Aleksandrovich Stupin⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Human Pathology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119991, Russia.
² Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cosmetology and Cell Technologies, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow 117997, Russia.
³ Department of Pathophysiology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119991, Russia.
⁴ Department of Hospital Surgery №1, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow 117997, Russia.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of certain biological injectable stimulants for the healing of skin wounds and criteria for its assessment.

Materials and methods: A comparative study of the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (SC group), collagen (Collagen group), and deproteinized calf blood hemoderivative (DCBH group) was carried out using an acute wound model. Control wounds were injected with isotonic sodium chloride solution (Control group). A total of four groups (28 wounds per group) were included in the study. Aged male Wistar rats were used as experimental animals. A dynamic assessment of the wound areas and edges, microvasculature assessment via laser Doppler flowmetry, histological and morphometric analyses to determine the quantitative and qualitative fibroblasts composition, as well as the degree of newly synthesized collagen maturity, was conducted on days 0, 3, 7, and 14.

Results: The administration of SCs provided a rapid but short-lasting effect, whereas the administration of collagen resulted in a delayed but long-lasting wound-healing effect. DCBH resulted in little to no effect. An increase in the perfusion volume of the wound edges accelerated the regeneration process, while the level of microcirculation did not affect the number and activity of fibroblasts. The wound healing acceleration, as well as the new collagen and stratified epithelium formation and maturation, was associated with the presence of a sufficient pool of mature and active fibroblasts in the wound, and not with the number of fibroblasts.

Conclusion: The present results clarify the action mechanisms of the studied drugs. In addition, the application purposes and different effects of each drug on the different wound healing phases were demonstrated. An assumption on the multi-component treatment advisability under the wound condition objective assessment possibility was made. Findings from this study may assist clinicians in making an informed transition to personalized wound management and achieve better clinical outcomes.

Keywords: collagen; deproteinized calf blood hemoderivative; fibroblast; mesenchymal stem cell; microhemocirculation; wound.

Publication types

Comparative Study

MeSH terms

Animals
Collagen / pharmacology*
Male
Mesenchymal Stem Cells*
Rats
Rats, Wistar
Skin / drug effects
Skin / pathology
T-Lymphocytes, Regulatory*
Wound Healing / drug effects*

Substances

Collagen

Grants and funding

This work did not receive specific sponsorship. The materials presented were obtained as a part of the Foundation for the Promotion of the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Field grant (232GRNTIS5/35963), devoted to the development of a biomedical product for wound healing. The groups described in the work were comparison groups for products developed and funded by the grant.