4.7 Article

Wound Dressing Selection Is Critical to Enhance Platelet-Rich Fibrin Activities in Wound Care

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21020624

关键词

regenerative medicine; platelet rich plasma; platelet rich fibrin; biomaterials; dressing; wound healing; cell activities

资金

  1. Department of Economic Development and Infrastructure from the Basque Government, Elkartek Program [KK-2019-0006-BC]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is investigated in ulcer management because it provides a healing milieu rich in growth factors and cytokines. Although crucial, the relevance of secondary dressings is under-researched and no data support the use of any particular dressing in preference to another. We assessed the properties of different dressing categories, including alginates, hydrocolloids, foams, hydrofibers, films, meshes and gauzes, in terms of affinity for PRF, releasate management (retention/extrusion) and the kinetics of cytokine release as well as the influence of each combination product, [PRF + dressing], on dermal cell behaviour, aiming to provide useful information for choosing the most adequate dressing for each particular patient. Active dressings including alginates, hydrofibers, foams and hydrocolloids blend with PRF, creating a diverse combination of products with different performances. Alginate and hydrofiber showed the highest affinity but moderate retention of releasate, without interfering with cell functions. Instead, the foam sequestered the releasate and hindered the release of growth factors, thereby compromising cell activities. Film and mesh presented very poor releasate retention and performed similarly to PRF by itself. Affinity index and releasate management explained 79% of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF-BB) concentration variability, p < 0.001. Cell proliferation depended on the ability of the combination product to retain/release supernatant, PDGF-BB concentration and cell adhesion R-2 = 0.91, p = 0.014.

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

4.7
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