Dear All
We have recently developed some new mineral-based hemostatic agents. As an ideal haemostatic agent should not present negative effects on the fresh wound and its healing process, we used stereology techniques to evaluate the effects of one-time topical application of our hemostatic agent on the skin wound healing process in an animal model. As streology showed inhibition of neovascularization and vasoconstriction (reduction of the length density of vessels and diameter on days 12 and 21 post-wounding), I wonder if these observations should be interpreted 100% negative?
What sort of wound did you create, and what was the effect on wound healing?
Dear Roy
Thank you very much for your kind reply. Regarding your question, a circular full thickness cutaneous wound with 1 cm diameter was generated on the dorsum of each animal using forceps and scissors. Our previous studies showed no significant negative impact on the wound healing process, either histopathologically or macroscopic (photographically). However, the steriology that quantitatively evaluated the structural changes of the skin has provided different results with the previous histopathological study.
Certainly an inhibition in angiogenesis along with vasoconstriction would be a negative with a haemostatic agent on skin. For example it's use on derided burns would certainly cause graft failure and inhibit re-epithelialisation
Neovascularizaion and increase in blood flow has been cited as the mechanism of action for many wound healing agents and interventions such as vaccum assisted wound closure etc. Hence your observations on these parameters would indicate a negative effect on wound healing. What was the actual time to wound healing in this group, compared to control?
you can use laser-Doppler perfusion imaging (LDPI), planemetery and Tensiometry methods
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Disease
- Disease Models
- Animal Models