Advertisement

Veterinary Research Communications

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 233–242 | Cite as

A porcine-cholecyst-derived scaffold for treating full thickness lacerated skin wounds in dogs

  • Satheesan Karthika
  • Sainulabdeen Anoop
  • C. B. Devanand
  • M. K. Narayanan
  • Madhavan Unni
  • Saji Eassow
  • Thapasimuthu Anilkumar
Original Article

Abstract

In regenerative medicine, despite the chances of graft-rejection, scaffolds prepared from extracellular matrices of various mammalian organs/tissues are widely used. Graft-assisted healing of full thickness skin-wounds is a major use of these bioscaffolds. Therefore, considering its prospective clinical use as a wound healing matrix, this study evaluated the healing potential of porcine cholecyst-derived scaffold (CDS) prepared by a non-detergent/enzymatic method for treating naturally occurring full thickness lacerated wounds in dogs. The CDS caused, in comparison with a commercial-grade bioscaffold prepared out of bovine dermal collagen (BDC), faster healing with respect to the wound healing parameters like peripheral tissue oedema, necrosis (amount and type), indurations, granulation tissue formation and the extent of re-epithelialisation. After 28 days of the treatment, the wound area (mean + SE) reduced from 27.60 ± 8.96 cm2 to 0.19+ 0.18 cm2 and 21.39 ± 5.48 to 6.59 ± 2.60 cm2 in CDS and BDC treated animals, with a reduction in wound sizes by 98.95 ± 2.09% and 54.53 ± 15.90 respectively. By this time, complete wound healing was observed in at least 75% of the former and 25% of the later groups. The CDS was deemed as a candidate bioscaffold for treating full thickness lacerated skin wounds in dogs.

Keywords

Regenerative medicine Bioscaffold Graft assisted healing Wound planimetry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors received funding from Kerala Science Technology and Environment Committee (No. 1275/2014/KSCSTE). The authors would also like to thank the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University for providing facilities to do this research work.

Compliance with ethical standards

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed: approval (No. AD/12/41/MVM/2014/SR) of the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy.

“All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.”

Conflict of interest

The authors did not declare any conflict of interests.

References

  1. Anilkumar TV, Vineetha VP, Revi D, Muhamed J, Rajan A (2014) Biomaterial properties of cholecyst-derived scaffold recovered by a non-detergent/enzymatic method. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl 102:1506–1516.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33131 PMID:24596163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anoop S, Pallavi KS, Syam K V, Devanand C B, Joyous S Anilkumar TV (2017) Cholecyst derived collagen as an extracellular matrix scaffold graft for the management of corneal injuries in dogs: a report of three cases. Indian J. Vet. Surg (Accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  3. Badylak SF, Gilbert WT (2008) Immune response to biologic scaffold materials. Semin Immunol 20:109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.003 PMCID: PMC2605275CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Badylak SF, Freytes DO, Gilbert TW (2009) Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function. Acta Biomater 5(1):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2008.09.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Balsa IM, Culp WT (2015) Wound care. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 45(5):1049–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2015.04.009 PMID:26022525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Basha SK, Kumar RVS, Haragopal V, Srilatha C, Sastry TP, Vidyavathi M (2011) Effects of fish scales extracted collagen biocasings on cutaneous wound healing in dogs. Research journal of pharmaceutical, biological and chemical sciences. RJPBCS 2:36–48Google Scholar
  7. Blakeman JM (1983) The skin biopsy. Cam Fam Physician 29:971–974Google Scholar
  8. Brody S, McMahon J, Yao L, O’Briena M, Dockeryc P, Pandit A (2007) The effect of cholecyst-derived extracellular matrix on the phenotypic behaviour of valvular endothelial and valvular interstitial cells. Biomaterials 28:1461–1469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.11.030 PMID:17174391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown EM, Cutshall WD, Hiles MC (2002) A new biomaterial derived from small intestine submucosa and developed into a wound matrix device. Wounds 14(4):150–166Google Scholar
  10. Burugapalli K, Pandit A (2007) Characterisation of tissue response and in vivo degradation of cholecyst–derived extracellular matrix. Biomacromolecules 8:3439–3451.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm700560k PMID:1791899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Burugapalli K, Thapasmuttu A, Chan CYJ, Yao L, Brody S, Kelly LJ, Pandit A (2007) Scaffold with a natural mesh like architecture: Isolation,structural and Invivo characterization. Biomacromolecules 8:928–936.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm061088x PMID:17309297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burugapalli K, Chan JCY, Kelly JL, Pandit A (2008) Buttressing staples with cholecyst-derived extracellular matrix (CEM) reinforces staple lines in an ex vivo peristaltic inflation model. Obes Surg 18:1418–1423.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-008-9518-7 PMID:18459017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Burugapalli K, Chan CYJ, Kelly LJ, Pandit AS (2014) Efficacy of crosslinking on tailoring in vivo biodegradability of fibro-porous decellularized extracellular matrix and restoration of native tissue structure: a quantitative study using stereology methods. Macromol Biosci 14(2):244–256.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.201300195 PMID: 24106216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crapo PM, Gilbert WT, Badylak FS (2011) An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials 32:3233–3243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.057 PMCID: PMC3084613CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari R, Boracchi P, Stefanello D (2015) Application of hyaluronic acid in the healing of non-experimental open wounds: a pilot study on 12 wounds in 10 client-owned dogs. Vet World:1247–1259.  https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.1247-1259 PMID:27047026
  16. Jothi NA, Thilagar S, Omar ARS, Kamaruddin MD, Shanthi G, Goh YM, Sabri MY (2007) Effects of biomaterials keratin-gelatin and basic fibroblast growth factor-gelatin composite film on wound healing in dogs. J Vet Malaysia 18(1):21–26Google Scholar
  17. Keane TJ, Londono R, Turner NJ, Badylak SF (2012) Consequences of ineffective decellularization of biologic scaffolds on the host response. Biomaterials 33:1771–1781.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.10.054 PMID:22137126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Khademhosseini A, Vacanti JP, Langer R (2009) Progress in tissue engineering. Sciam 300:64–71.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0509-64 PMID:19438051Google Scholar
  19. Malcarney HL, Bonar F, Murrell GA (2005) Early inflammatory reaction after rotator cuff repair with a porcine small intestine submucosal implant. Am J Sports Med 33:907–911.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504271500 PMID:15827358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Marquis A, Packer RA, Borgens BR, Duerstock SB (2015) Increase in oxidative stress biomarkers in dogs with ascending–descending myelomalacia following spinal cord injury. J Neurol Sci 353(1–2):63–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2015.04.003 PMID:25912174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mostow EN, Haraway GD, Dalsing M (2005) Effectiveness of an extracellular matrix graft (OASIS wound matrix) in the treatment of chronic leg ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Surg 41:837–843.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2005.01.042 PMID:15886669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Muhamed J, Revi D, Rajan A, Geetha S, Anilkumar TV (2015a) Biocompatibility and Immunophenotypic characterization of a porcine Cholecyst-derived scaffold implanted in rats. Toxicol Pathol 43(4):536–545.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623314550722 PMID:25318959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Muhamed J, Revi D, Rajan A, Anilkumar TV (2015b) Comparative local immunogenic potential of scaffolds prepared from porcine cholecyst, jejunum, and urinary bladder in rat subcutaneous model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 103(6):1302–1311.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33296 PMID:25370716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nair RS, Ameer JM, Alison MR, Anilkumar TV (2017) A gold nanoparticle coated porcine cholecyst-derived bioscaffold for cardiac tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 157:130–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.05.056 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Revi D, Vineetha PV, Muhamed J, Rajan A, Anilkumar VT (2013) Porcine cholecyst-derived scaffold promotes full-thickness wound healing in rabbit. J Tissue Engng 4, 1:–17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731413518060 PMID:24555014
  26. Revi D, Vineetha VP, Muhamed J, Surendran GC, Rajan A, Kumary TV, Anilkumar TV (2015) Wound healing potential of scaffolds prepared from porcine jejunum and urinary bladder by a non-detergent/enzymatic method. J Biomater Appl 29(9):1218–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328214560218 PMID:25425562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Revi D, Geetha C, Thekkuveetti IA, Anilkumar TV (2016) Fibroblast-loaded cholecyst-derived scaffold induces faster healing of full thickness burn wound in rabbit. J Biomater Appl 30(7):1036–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328215615759 PMID:26589297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schallberger SP, Stanley BJ, Hauptman JG, Steficek BA (2008) Effect of porcine small intestinal submucosa on acute full-thickness wounds in dogs. Vet Surg 37:515–524.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00398.x PMID:19134100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Slatter D (2002) Textbook of small animal surgery, 3rd edn. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Turner NJ, Badylak SF (2015) The use of biologic scaffolds in the treatment of chronic nonhealing wounds. Adv wound care 4(80):490–500.  https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2014.0604 PMCID: PMC4505760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vacanti JP, Langer R (1993) Tissue engineering. Science 260:920–926.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science PMID: 8493529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Zheng MH, Chen J, Kirilak Y, Willers C, Xu J, Wood D (2005) Porcine small intestine submucosa (SIS) is not an acellular collagenous matrix and contains porcine DNA: possible implications in human implantation. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl 73:61–67.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30170 PMID:15736287CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satheesan Karthika
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sainulabdeen Anoop
    • 1
  • C. B. Devanand
    • 1
  • M. K. Narayanan
    • 1
  • Madhavan Unni
    • 3
  • Saji Eassow
    • 4
  • Thapasimuthu Anilkumar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Veterinary Surgery and RadiologyCollege of Veterinary and Animal SciencesThrissurIndia
  2. 2.Division of Experimental Pathology, Biomedical Technology WingSree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and TechnologyTrivandrumIndia
  3. 3.Department Clinical MedicineCollege of Veterinary and Animal SciencesMannuthyIndia
  4. 4.Meat Products of India Ltd. Edayar POKoothattukulamIndia

Personalised recommendations