|
Abstract: This paper reviews
the physiology of wound healing and properties of
the “ideal” dressing and also reviews advanced
wound therapeutics and dressings, such as growth
factors and biological skin
substitutes.
Introduction
Treatment
of diabetic foot ulceration is much more complex
than simply putting a dressing over a wound.
Diabetic foot ulceration is a significant cause of
morbidity and is the most common reason for
hospital admission in diabetic patients. Annually,
two to three percent of diabetic
patients1,2 will develop foot ulcers, and
up to 15 percent of diabetic patients will develop
chronic ulcers during their lifetimes.3 In
those who require lower-limb amputation, 70 to 90
percent will be preceded by a foot
ulceration.
Physiology of
Wound
Healing
The
three general phases involved in wound healing are
the acute inflammatory phase, the proliferative
phase, and the maturation phase. The initiation
and transition of these phases have no clear-cut
boundaries but are descriptors on a continuum of
events. The initial phase, inflammation, involves
transient vasoconstriction of local arterioles and
capillaries followed by an influx of inflammatory
cells and plasma proteins to mediate the repair
process. The next phase is proliferation, where
fibroblastic activity and angiogenesis by the
endothelial cells begin. The maturation phase may
last for up to two years and involves collagen
synthesis and breakdown.
Developments in Physiological
Aspects of Wound
Healing
Chronic
diabetic foot ulcers have been shown to result
from a number of causes, one of which involves
faulty wound healing. The normal wound healing
process entails a complex interplay between
connective tissue formation, cellular activity,
and growth factor activation. All three of these
physiologic processes are altered in the diabetic
state and contribute to the poor healing of
diabetic foot ulcers. More specifically, the
chronic diabetic foot ulcer is stalled in the
inflammation phase of the normal wound healing
process.4 During this delay, there is a
cessation of epidermal growth and migration over
the wound surface.5,6 Analyses of fluid
from chronic wounds have demonstrated elevated
levels of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)
directly resulting in increased proteolytic
activity and inactivation of the growth factors
that are necessary for proper wound healing. A
number of recent studies have investigated these
alterations in an attempt to better understand the
wound healing abnormalities in diabetes and to
target therapy specifically aimed at correcting
these deficiencies, as described
below.
Collagen.
Collagen, the most abundant protein in connective
tissue, is an integral component of dermis, bones,
tendons, and ligaments. Collagen synthesis and
degradation in wound repair are complex processes
that continue at the wound site long after the
injury. The resulting scar tissue following wound
repair never fully regains the tensile strength of
the original intact skin. Instead, scar collagen
retains only 70- to 80-percent tensile strength of
the original collagen.7 The balance between
collagen synthesis and degradation in wound repair
is tenuous, and disease states, such as diabetes,
can shift the balance to one side, disrupting the
wound healing
process.
In
diabetes, collagen synthesis is markedly
decreased, resulting in chronic connective tissue
complications. The defect in collagen metabolism
in diabetes is present at both the collagen
peptide production level as well as the
posttranslational modification of collagen
degradation. The resultant collagen production
deficits can be observed in several systems,
including thickening of the vascular basement
membrane, limited joint mobility, and poor wound
healing.
Cellular
activity. The inflammatory stage of wound
repair involves an orchestrated interaction of
resident cells, such as epithelial cells,
fibroblasts, dendritic cells, and endothelial
cells, with biochemical activity. In addition to
these resident cells, platelets, neutrophils,
T-cells, natural killer cells, and macrophages are
recruited to the wound site. These cells migrate
to the injury site to mediate the inflammation,
coagulation, and angiogenesis processes occurring
in the wound healing
process.
In
diabetes, the resultant hyperglycemia can
potentially mitigate the cellular activity in the
inflammatory process. More specifically, the
morphological characteristics of macrophages have
been observed to be transformed in such a manner
as to impair their function.8 Morphological
changes have also been noted in skin
keratinocytes. Additionally, inhibition of
keratinocyte proliferation in the presence of
increased cellular differentiation leads to an
imbalance in keratinocyte production, an essential
step in the wound healing process.9
Consequently, impairment of the cellular mediators
during the wound healing process in diabetes is
implicated as a cause of faulty wound
healing.
Growth
factors. Growth factors influence the wound
healing process through inhibitory or stimulatory
effect on the local wound environment. Growth
factors, such as platelet-derived growth factor,
basic fibroblast growth factor, vascular
endothelial growth factor, and nitric oxide, have
all been found in wound fluid. These growth
factors are known to be integral in the
chemotaxis, migration, stimulation, and
proliferation of cells and matrix substances
necessary for wound healing. Therefore, the
altered secretion or absence of these growth
factors in diabetic foot ulcers can potentially
impair wound healing. Recent investigation of the
role these growth factors play in wound healing
appears to support this
hypothesis.
Becaplermin.
Recombinant human platelet-derived growth
factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB)(becaplermin) is the only
growth factor to date approved by the US Food and
Drug Administration for the treatment of diabetic
foot ulcers. Levels of PDGF have been shown to be
lower in chronic wounds. Therefore, studies have
investigated the results of topical augmentation
of PDGF in these chronic wounds.10
Administered in a gel formulation concurrent with
a standardized regimen of good wound care,
becaplermin gel increased both the incidence of
complete wound closure and decreased the time to
achieve complete wound healing.11
Becaplermin is believed to enhance wound healing
through the expression of PDGF-B by macrophages,
endothelial cells, and platelets. PDGF-B is known
to be a potent mitogen and chemotactic agent for
connective tissue and stromal cells and may act to
increase the wound vascularization by stimulating
endothelial cell proliferation, movement, and tube
formation.
Basic
fibroblast growth factor (bFGF). bFGF provides
the initial stimulation of endothelial cell
migration and proliferation in wound repair. It is
also a potent mitogen for all cell types and found
predominantly in the early proliferative phase of
the wound. The importance of bFGF in wound repair
has been demonstrated with studies using
neutralizing antibodies against bFGF, which
resulted in marked decrease in production of
granulation
tissue.12
Topical
application of bFGF has demonstrated faster
granulation tissue formation and epidermal
regeneration in the context of burn injuries.
However, topical application of bFGF had no
discernible advantage over placebo for healing
chronic diabetic foot ulcers.13 Application
of bFGF in a 5mg/mL saline spray that was
performed daily for six weeks showed no increase
in healing rate to that of saline gauze dressings.
While bFGF has been reported in other studies to
enhance wound healing slightly, this enhancement
was not deemed significant.14 The failure
of topically applied bFGF to promote wound healing
may be due perhaps to inadequate dosage of the
growth factor or the necessity of a “cocktail” of
several growth factors to effectively influence
wound
stimulation.
Vascular
endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF also
induces endothelial cell proliferation and
migration in the wound healing process. Secretion
of VEGF can be performed by a number of cell
types, including keratinocytes, macrophages,
fibroblasts, and endothelial cells, generally in a
hypoxic environment.15,16 The concentration
of VEGF reaches maximal levels at day seven
following wound development and appears to be the
major stimuli for induction of angiogenesis. In
the presence of diabetes, the production of VEGF
has been shown to decrease.8 Furthermore,
the histological appearance of the wounds were
found to have diminished cellularity, decreased
angiogenesis, and delayed granulation tissue
formation and reepithelialization. Current
research is aimed at the possible benefits of VEGF
gene therapy on promotion of diabetic wound
healing.
Nitric
oxide (NO). NO is normally secreted by
macrophages and fibroblasts during the wound
healing process. However, variation in the NO
production in the chronic wound has been found to
parallel the reparative collagen
formation.17 When fibroblasts were
genetically modified to prevent synthesis of NO,
there was diminished fibroblast proliferation,
decreased collagen synthesis, and delayed
contraction of collagen lattices.18
Replacement of the NO restored collagen synthesis
to normal levels. These observations demonstrate
the integral role NO production plays in the wound
healing process and how therapy aimed at
maintaining optimal levels may facilitate healing
of the chronic diabetic foot ulcer.
Wound Care
Dressings
The
effective use of dressings is essential to ensure
the optimal management of diabetic foot ulcers. In
recent years, the concept of a clean, moist,
wound-healing environment has been widely
accepted. Benefits to this approach include
prevention of tissue dehydration and cell death,
acceleration of angiogenesis, and facilitation of
the interaction of growth factors with the target
cells.19 Additionally, patients have
reported less discomfort with moist wound
dressings. The notion that a moist wound
environment increases the risk of developing an
infection appears to be
unfounded.
Properties
of the “ideal” dressing. Modern dressings are
designed to promote and maintain a moist wound
environment in the different phases of wound
healing. While no perfect wound dressing exists
for the diabetic foot ulcer, the properties sought
should include: • A moist wound
environment • Promotion of wound healing •
Provision of mechanical protection •
Nonadherence to the wound • Allowance for
removal without pain or trauma • Capability of
absorbing excess exudate • Allowance of gaseous
exchange • Impermeance to microorganisms •
Acceptability to the patient • Ease to use •
Cost
effectiveness.
Types
of dressings. Wound dressings may be described
as passive, active, or interactive.20 While
passive dressings simply serve a protective
function, both active and interactive dressings
create a moist environment at the wound/dressing
interface. Furthermore, interactive dressings are
believed to also be capable of modifying the
physiology of the wound environment by modulating
and stimulating cellular activity and growth
factor release. Interactive dressings include the
hydrocolloids, alginates, hydrogels, iodine
dressings, and, though not technically dressings,
living skin equivalents. These dressings
additionally promote debridement and may enhance
granulation and reepithelialization (Table
1).20–22
Table 1
|
![]() |
|
Hydrocolloid
dressings. As some of the first interactive
dressings to be developed, the hydrocolloids are
occlusive dressings designed to create and
maintain a moist wound environment.23 They
are capable of absorbing a moderate amount of
wound exudate, resulting in a moist gel formation
on the wound surface. However, oversaturation of
the dressing may lead to leakage of the gelatinous
substance, causing maceration of the surrounding
skin. Therefore, hydrocolloids should be avoided
on plantar ulcers of the foot, as the periwound
skin is susceptible to maceration. Additionally,
hydrocolloids have been shown to retain growth
factors under the dressing as well as promote
granulation and
epithelialization.24
Alginate
dressings. Alginates are naturally occurring
polysaccharides composed of the sugars mannuronic
and guluronic acids. They are found primarily as
the sodium salt in the brown algae, Phaeophyceae.
Alginate dressings are composed entirely of
calcium alginate or a combination of calcium and
sodium alginate. Alginates can absorb between 15
to 20 times their own weight in fluid.25
The absorptive capacity of alginates makes them
eminently suited for the treatment of heavily
draining wounds. However, caution should be used
as the pooling exudate from alginate dressings may
cause maceration of the surrounding
tissues.
Hydrogel
dressings. Composed of insoluble polymers,
hydrogels contain hydrophilic sites that enable
interaction with aqueous solutions and absorb and
retain significant volumes of wound
exudate.26 Hydrogels facilitate autolysis
and rehydrate the wound. Hydrogels may be
appropriate in diabetic ulcers that require
debridement when surgical debridement is not an
option. However, hydrogels are generally
considered inappropriate for ischemic and
gangrenous
ulcers.
Iodine
dressings. The use of antisepsis in the
treatment of ulcers is controversial, as
antiseptics have been found to be harmful to
healing wounds. Iodine, considered an antiseptic,
has been found to be toxic to human cells as well
as bacteria and fungi at high doses.27,28
However, in a diluted form, the antimicrobial
effects are still present, but the toxicity to
human cells is diminished. Therefore, iodine
dressings may be useful in the diabetic ulcer at
risk for
infection.
Promogran.
Promogran is a combination collagen and oxidized
regenerated cellulose (ORC) topical wound
dressing. The importance of collagen synthesis and
growth factor activation to normal wound healing
has been demonstrated in a number of studies
showing increased proteolytic activity and
inactivation of growth factors in chronic foot
ulcers.29,30 It is believed that the
combined use of collagen and ORC can potentially
inhibit the proteolytic activity while allowing
continued growth factor
activity.
In
a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 37
percent of promogran-treated patients had complete
wound closure compared to 28.3 percent of
gauze-treated patients. While this was not
statistically significant, there was a statistical
significance in wounds of less than six months
duration. In wounds of less than six months
duration, 32.6 percent of promogran-treated
patients healed compared to 20.4 percent of
gauze-treated patients. The results indicate that
promogran may be employed as an alternative to
moistened gauze for the treatment of diabetic foot
ulcers with a duration of less than six
months.
Developments in
Biological Skin
Substitutes
Biological
skin substitutes, also known as living skin
equivalents (LSEs), are commercially offered in
both autograft and allogeneic form. The allogeneic
LSEs are produced from neonatal fibroblasts and
keratinocytes using tissue-engineering technology.
Available for epidermal, dermal, and composite
(epidermal and dermal) wounds, LSEs offer distinct
advantages over traditional skin grafting because
LSEs are noninvasive, do not require anesthesia,
can be performed in an outpatient setting, and
avoid potential donor-site complications, such as
infection and scarring.31 Furthermore, more
rapid wound coverage of chronic diabetic foot
ulcers with the use of LSEs can provide both
social and economic advantages by reducing the
number of office visits and hospital stays and
preventing serious wound complications that often
lead to
amputation.
Epidermal
grafts. Epidermal grafts, available as
autografts, are produced through a technique
allowing in-vitro cultivation and serial
subculture of epidermal cells, resulting in sheets
of viable keratinocytes. Commercially available
since 1988 (Epicel®, Genzyme Tissue Repair
Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts), epidermal
grafts can provide coverage of large skin defects
with acceptable cosmetic results and are currently
indicated for burns and leg ulcers. The
disadvantages associated with autologous epidermal
grafts include a necessary biopsy specimen,
product fragility (making handling of the product
very difficult), and the two- to three-week delay
for the cultivation
procedure.
In
response to the delay in product procurement,
cultured allogeneic keratinocyte grafts were
developed. Cultured from neonatal foreskin,
keratinocyte allografts can be cryopreserved,
allowing for a longer shelf life and increased
availability.32,33 While availability is
improved and biopsy specimens made unnecessary,
allogeneic epidermal grafts, like autogeneic
epidermal grafts, are fragile and difficult to
handle due to a lack of a backing material or
dermal layer. Additionally, they are unsuitable
for deep wounds, as they provide only temporary
coverage of the wound for eventual replacement by
host epithelium. Blistering has also occurred
following grafting onto burn wounds.34–37
Epidermal replacements are most successful when
placed on a dermal bed, suggesting that the dermal
elements play a key role in the stability and
durability of the graft.
Dermal
grafts. Dermal replacements are allogeneic in
nature and possess the advantage of immediate
wound coverage. It is believed that the elements
in the dermal layer exert positive effects on
epithelial migration, differentiation, attachment,
and growth in the wound healing process providing
a good base for future epidermal
grafting.38 Initial dermal replacements
were harvested from cadaver skin for use in
temporary wound coverage of full-thickness burns.
While successful for this specific function,
cadaveric allograft has limited availability, and
safety concerns have restricted its use. The
cadaver allografts can be treated chemically to
eradicate antigenic components, thus leaving an
immunologically inert acellular dermal matrix with
an intact basement membrane (Alloderm®, Life Cell
Corporation, Woodlands, Texas). While encouraging
results have been found in pilot studies for burn
wounds, procurement of the cadaver skin and virus
screening still pose problems, limiting its
use.39,40
As
an alternative to cadaver skin, a dermal graft
consisting of a polymer of bovine collagen and
chondroitin-6 sulfate with an overlying silastic
sheet of human keratinocytes and fibroblasts has
been developed (Integra®, Life Sciences
Corporation, Plainsboro New Jersey). It is
indicated for burns, as a surgical space filler
for deep tissue defects, and for cosmetic
procedures. However, it cannot be generated in
large quantities, is susceptible to infection, and
is not indicated for use in diabetic foot
ulcers.
Recently
approved by the FDA for use in diabetic foot
ulcers, Dermagraft® (Advanced Tissue Sciences
Inc., La Jolla, California, distributed by Smith
& Nephew Inc., Largo, Florida) consists of
neonatal dermal fibroblasts cultured in vitro onto
a bioabsorbable polyglactin mesh, producing a
living, metabolically active tissue containing the
normal dermal matrix proteins and cytokines.
Dermagraft has been shown to incorporate quickly
into the wound with good vascularization and with
no adverse side
effects.41–43
In
a prospective, randomized, multicenter study,
Dermagraft-treated ulcers were associated with
more complete and rapid healing with the added
benefit of a reduction in the ulcer recurrence
rate compared to conventional therapy (Figure
1).44 There was a dose relationship found
in which multiple applications of Dermagraft
applied to the wound led to more rapid and
complete healing. Additionally, more weekly
applications of Dermagraft also exhibited greater
improvement compared to application of the
Dermagraft every two weeks.
Figure 1
|
![]() |
| Figure 1. Dermagraft study.
Results of randomized, prospective, multicenter
Dermagraft study for diabetic foot ulcers. Of 50
patients with diabetic foot ulcers, 32 percent
of the control (CT) achieved wound healing
compared to 39 percent of patients who received
Dermagraft (DG-All) treatment (p = 0.14).
Patients who received metabolically active
products at the first two applications and the
majority of the following application (DG-TR)
achieved 51-percent healing rate by week 12 (p =
0.006). Patients who received metabolically
active products at all times (DG-E) achieved
54-percent healing rate (p = 0.007).
|
While
the precise mechanism of action of Dermagraft is
not completely understood, it is hypothesized that
the matrix components and cytokines produced by
the fibroblasts may provide a stimulus for more
rapid and complete healing. Because collagen
production and growth factor secretion in diabetic
skin have been found to be abnormal, the
engrafting of normal matrix components by
Dermagraft may respond physiologically to the
recipient host tissues to contribute to improved
rate and quality of wound
healing.44
Composite
grafts. Composite grafts are bilayered skin
equivalents consisting of both epidermal and
dermal components. One such composite graft,
Apligraf® (Organogenesis, Inc., Canton,
Massachusetts, distributed by Novartis
Pharmaceutical Corp., East Hanover, New Jersey)
contains an outer layer of allogeneic human
keratinocytes on an inner dermal layer consisting
of human fibroblasts on type 1 collagen dispersed
in a protein matrix. While Apligraf looks and
feels like human skin, it does not contain blood
vessels, hair follicles, or sweat glands.
Interestingly, Apligraf acts like human skin,
producing all the cytokines and growth factors
produced by normal skin during the wound healing
process (Table 2).45
Table 2
|
![]() |
|
In
diabetic foot ulcers, Apligraf was shown to
significantly increase the wound healing rate as
well as decrease the median time to complete wound
closure (Figure 2).46,47 Ulcer recurrence
rate was similar in both Apligraf-treated ulcers
and standard treatment groups.47
Additionally, no adverse events or immunological
effects have been associated with the use of
Apligraf. While it is available immediately,
Apligraf does have a limited shelf life of only
five days; therefore, it requires patient
scheduling within that time frame.
Figure 2
|
![]() |
| Figure 2. Apligraf study.
Frequency of complete wound closure. Results of
randomized, prospective, multicenter Apligraf
study for diabetic foot ulcers. The difference
between the control and Apligraf treatment is
apparent early in the study. At week 4, three
percent of the patients who received control
treatment had wound healing compared to 20
percent of patients who received Apligraf once a
week for the first four weeks. At week eight, 25
percent of control patients achieved wound
healing compared to 45 percent of the
Apligraf-treated patients. By 12 weeks, 39
percent of the control patients achieved
complete wound healing compared to 56 percent of
the patients who received Apligraf treatment (p
= 0.0026).
|
Similar
to Dermagraft, the exact mechanism of action for
Apligraf is not fully understood. It is believed
that rapid wound healing by Apligraf is due to
filling of the wound with extracellular matrix
proteins and with the subsequent induction and
expression of growth factors and cytokines
necessary for wound healing. Additionally, the
matrix components may further facilitate the
recruitment of cells to the wound, improving wound
repair.
Conclusions
Intensive
work over the last twenty years has considerably
increased our understanding of the physiology and
pathophysiology of wound healing. This has
resulted in the development of new wound healing
treatments, such as living skin equivalents and
wound care products, directed at increasing the
bioavailability of growth factors in the chronic
wound environment. Clinical trials conducted over
the last five years have shown very promising
results with several products recently approved
for clinical use in the diabetic foot ulcer. The
variety of advanced wound care techniques and
products will aid the clinician in developing
appropriate algorithms for the diabetic foot wound
as well as potentially increasing wound healing
overall.
|
References
1. Borssen B, Bergenheim T,
Lithner F. The epidemiology of foot lesions in
diabetic patients aged 15-50 years. Diabetic Med
1990;7:438–44. 2. Kumar S, Ashe HA, Fernando
DJS, et al. The prevalence of foot ulceration
and its correlates in type 2 diabetic patients:
A population-based study. Diabetic Med
1994;11:480–4. 3. Palumbo PJ, Melton LJ III.
Peripheral vascular disease and diabetes.
Diabetes in America. NIH Publ. No. 85-1468.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office,
1985. 4. Loots MA, Lamme EN, Zeegelaar J, et
al. Differences in cellular infiltrate and
extracellular matrix of chronic diabetic and
venous ulcers versus acute wounds. J Invest
Dermatol 1998;111:850–7. 5. Jude EB, Boulton
AJ, Ferguson MW, Appleton I. The role of nitric
oxide synthase isoforms and arginase in the
pathogenesis of diabetic foot ulcers: Possible
modulatory effects by transforming growth factor
beta 1. Diabetologia 1999;42:748–57. 6. Loots
MA, Lamme EN, Mekkes JR, et al. Cultured
fibroblasts from chronic diabetic wounds on the
lower extremity (non-insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus) show disturbed proliferation. Arch
Dermatol Res 1999;291:93–9. 7. Schilling JA.
Wound healing. Physiol Rev
1968;48:374–423. 8. Zykova SN, Jenssen TG,
Berdal M, et al. Altered cytokine and nitric
oxide secretion in vitro by macrophages from
diabetic type II-like db/db mice. Diabetes
2000;40:1451–8. 9. Spravchikov N, Sizyakov G,
Gartsbein M, et al. Glucose effects on skin
keratinocytes. Diabetes 2001;50:1627–35. 10.
Cooper DM, Yu EZ, Hennesey P, et al.
Determination of endogenous cytokines in chronic
wounds. Ann Surg 1994;219:688–92. 11. Wieman
TJ, Smiell JM, Su Y. Efficacy and safety of a
topical gel formulation of recombinant human
platelet-derived growth factor-BB (Becaplermin)
in patients with chronic neuropathic diabetic
ulcers. Diabetes Care 1998;21(5)822–7. 12.
Broadley K, Aquino A, Woodward S, et al.
Monospecific antibodies implicate basic
fibroblast growth factor in normal wound repair.
Lab Invest 1989;61:571–5. 13. Richard JL,
Parer-Richard C, Daures JP, et al. Effect of
topical basic fibroblast growth factor on the
healing of chronic diabetic neuropathic ulcer of
the foot. Diabetes Care 1995;18(1):64–9. 14.
Robson MC, Phillips LG, Lawrence T, et al. The
safety and effect of topically applied
recombinant basic fibroblast growth factor on
the healing of chronic pressure sores. Ann Surg
1992;216:401–8. 15. Detmar M, Brown LF, Berse
B, et al. Hypoxia regulates the expression of
vascular permeability factor/vascular
endothelial growth factor (VPF/VEGF) and its
receptor in human skin. J Invest Dermatol
1997;108:263–8. 16. Frank S, Hubner G, Breier
G, et al. Regulation of vascular endothelial
growth factor expression in cultured
keratinocytes: Implication for normal and
impaired wound healing. J Biol Chem
1995;270:12607–13. 17. Schaffer MR, Tantry U,
Efron PA, et al. Diabetes-impaired healing and
reduced wound nitric oxide synthesis: A possible
pathophysiologic correlation. Surgery
1997;121(5):513–9. 18. Shi HP, Efron DT, Most
D, Barbul A. The role of iNOS in wound healing.
Surgery 2001;130(2):225–9. 19. Field FK,
Kerstein MD. Overview of wound healing in a
moist environment. Am J Surg
1994;167(1A):2S–6S. 20. Hansson C.
Interactive wound dressings: A practical guide
to their use in older patients. Drugs &
Aging 1997;11:271–84. 21. Wijetunge DB.
Management of acute and traumatic wounds: Main
aspects of care in adults and children. Am J
Surg 1194;167(1A)suppl:56s–60s. 22. Lawrence
C. Dressings and wound infection. Am J Surg
1994;167(1A)suppl:21s–24s. 23. Thomas S.
Hydrocolloids update. J Wound Care
1992;1:27–30. 24. Ono I, Gunji H, Zhang JZ,
et al. Studies on cytokines related to wound
healing in donor site wound fluid. J Dermatol
Sci 1995;10:241–5. 25. Jones V. Alginate
dressings and diabetic foot lesions. Diab Foot
1999;2:8–14. 26. Thomas S, Hay NP. Assessing
the hydroaffinity of hydrogel dressings. J Wound
Care 1995;3:89–91. 27. Geronemus RG, Mertz
PM, Eaglstein WH. Wound healing: The effects of
topical agents. Arch Dermatol
1979;115:1311–3. 28. Kashyap A, Beezhold D,
Wiseman J, et al. Effect of povidone-iodine
ointment on wound healing. Am J Surg
1995;61:486–91. 29. Singer AJ, Clark RA.
Cutaneous wound healing. N Engl J Med
1999;341:738–46. 30. Witte MB. General
principles of wound healing. Surg Clin North Am
1997;77:509–28. 31. Muhart M, McFalls S,
Kirsner RS, et al. Behavior of tissue-engineered
skin. Arch Dermatol 1999135:913–8. 32. Teepe
RGC, Koebrugge ED, Ponec M, Vermeer BJ. Fresh
versus cryopreserved allografts for the
treatment of chronic skin ulcers. Br J Dermatol
1990;122:81–9. 33. Teepe RGC, Roseeuw DI,
Hermans D, et al. Randomized trial comparing
cryopreserved cultured epidermal allografts with
hydrocolloid dressings in healing chronic venous
ulcers. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993;29:982–8. 34.
Phillips TJ. Cultured skin grafts: Past,
present, future. Arch Dermatol
1988;124:1035–8. 35. Phillips TJ, Gilchrest
BA. Clinical applications of cultured
epithelium. Epith Cell Biol 1992;1:39–46. 36.
Phillips T, Bhawan J, Leigh IM, et al. Cultured
epidermal allografts: A study of differentiation
and allograft survival. J Am Acad Dermatol
1990;23:189–98. 37. Phillips T. Cultured
epidermal allografts: A temporary or permanent
solution? Transplantation 1991;51:937–41. 38.
Clark RAF. Basics of cutaneous wound repair. J
Dermatol Surg Oncol 1993;19:693–706. 39.
Krant D, Eckhardt M, Patton ML, et al. Combined
simultaneous application of cultured epithelial
autograft and Alloderm. Wounds
1995;7:137–42. 40. Kolenik SA III, Leffell
DJ. The use of cryopreserved human skin
allografts in wound healing following Mohs
surgery. Dermatol Surg 1995;21:615–20. 41.
Hansbrough JF, Dore C, Hansbrough WB. Clinical
trials of a living dermal tissue replacement
placed beneath meshed, split-thickness skin
grafts on excised burn wounds. J Burn Care
Rehabil 1992;13:519–29. 42. Hansbrough JF,
Cooper ML, Greenleaf G, et al. Evaluation of a
biodegradable matrix containing cultured human
fibroblasts as a dermal replacement beneath
meshed split-thickness skin grafts. Surgery
1992;11:438–46. 43. Cooper ML, Hansbrough JF,
Spielvogel RL, et al. In-vivo optimization of a
living dermal substitute employing cultured
human fibroblasts on a biodegradable
polyglycolic acid or polyglactin mesh.
Biomaterials 1991;12:243–48. 44. Gentzkow GD,
Iwasaki SD, Hershon KS, et al. Use of
Dermagraft, a cultured human dermis, to treat
diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care
1996;19(4):350–4. 45. Eaglstein WH, Iriondo
M, Laszio K. A composite skin substitute
(Graftskin) for surgical wounds: A clinical
experience. Dermat Surg 1995;21:834–9. 46.
Brem H, Balledux J, Bloom T, Kerstein M, Hollier
L. Healing of diabetic foot ulcers and pressure
ulcers with human skin equivalent. Arch Surg
2000;135:627–34. 47. Veves A, Falanga V,
Armstrong DG, Sabolinski ML. Graftskin, a human
skin equivalent, is effective in the management
of noninfected neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers.
Diabetes Care
2001;24(2):290–5. |