4.2 Article

Equine Exuberant Granulation Tissue and Human Keloids: A Comparative Histopathologic Study

期刊

VETERINARY SURGERY
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 783-789

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.12055.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo compare histopathologic features of a fibroproliferative disorder in horses (exuberant granulation tissueEGT) and people (keloid). Sample PopulationArchival tissue samples of EGT (n=8) and keloid (12). MethodsAfter automated hematoxylin and eosin, histochemical (Gomori trichrome, Verhoeff-van Gieson elastin) and immunohistochemical (vimentin, -smooth muscle actin, CD34, CD68, CD117) stainings, tissue sections were evaluated using a semi-quantitative grading scale for presence or absence of ulceration, keloidal collagen, myofibroblasts, and elastic fibers as well as degree of inflammation, fibrosis, vascularity, and orientation of collagen fibers. ResultsSuperficial dermis and deep dermis of both horses and people had increased numbers of haphazardly oriented thickened collagen fibers; however, only keloids contained keloidal collagen. Fibroblast numbers were markedly increased in both groups but only EGT had myofibroblasts. Minimal vascularity was observed in the deep dermis of both groups. The superficial dermis in EGT was characterized by small vessels within immature granulation tissue. Macrophages and mast cells were infrequently found in both groups but polymorphonuclear cells were markedly increased in EGT. ConclusionsHumans and horses are the only mammals known to naturally develop excessive granulation during wound healing; however, similarities and differences between fibroblast populations and associated collagen have not been reported. Inflammatory response may contribute to observed differences in the cellular populations, with EGT possessing markedly increased myofibroblasts, small vessels, and acute inflammatory cells compared with keloids. Further work is warranted to develop common treatment strategies for these fibroproliferative conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据