Novel insights into negative pressure wound healing from an in situ porcine perspective. Issue 1 (7th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hodge, Jacob G.; Pistorio, Ashley L.; Neal, Christopher A.; Dai, Hongyan; Nelson‐Brantley, Jennifer G.; Steed, Molly E.; Korentager, Richard A.; Zamierowski, David S.; Mellott, Adam J.
• Is Part Of: Wound repair and regeneration. Volume 30:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 64
• Page End: 81
• Publication Date: 2021-10-07
• Subjects: biomedical engineering -- foreign body response -- genomics -- negative pressure wound therapy -- porcine model -- wound healing; Wound healing -- Periodicals; Regeneration (Biology) -- Periodicals; 617.14
• DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12971
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1067-1927

Abstract

Abstract: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used clinically to promote tissue formation and wound closure. In this study, a porcine wound model was used to further investigate the mechanisms as to how NPWT modulates wound healing via utilization of a form of NPWT called the vacuum‐assisted closure. To observe the effect of NPWT more accurately, non‐NPWT control wounds containing GranuFoam™ dressings, without vacuum exposure, were utilized. In situ histological analysis revealed that NPWT enhanced plasma protein adsorption throughout the GranuFoam™, resulting in increased cellular colonization and tissue ingrowth. Gram staining revealed that NPWT decreased bacterial dissemination to adjacent tissue with greater bacterial localization within the GranuFoam™. Genomic analysis demonstrated the significant changes in gene expression across a number of genes between wounds treated with non‐NPWT and NPWT when compared against baseline tissue. However, minimal differences were noted between non‐NPWT and NPWT wounds, including no significant differences in expression of collagen, angiogenic, or key inflammatory genes. Similarly, significant increases in immune cell populations were observed from day 0 to day 9 for both non‐NPWT and NPWT wounds, though no differences were noted between non‐NPWT and NPWT wounds. Furthermore, histological analysis demonstrated the presence of a foreign body response (FBR), with giant cell formation and encapsulation of GranuFoam™ particles. The unique in situ histological evaluation and genomic comparison of non‐NPWT and NPWT wounds in this pilot study provided a never‐before‐shown perspective, offering novel insights into the physiological processes of NPWT and the potential role of a FBR in NPWT clinical outcomes.