3.8 Article

Effects of the Human Amniotic Membrane on the Cartilage Graft: Prognosis and Absorption in White Rabbits

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 219-228

出版社

IRANIAN PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY ASSOC
DOI: 10.29252/wjps.8.2.219

关键词

Graft; Cartilage; Amniotic membrane; Rabbit

类别

资金

  1. Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Cartilage grafts are generally accepted for the restoration and reconstruction of nasal contours. The main concern that plastic surgeons may need to address after surgery pertains to the resorption and disfigurement of the grafted cartilage, especially in allogenic and heterogenic grafts. METHODS A total of 12 white rabbits were divided into three groups according to the types of graft including autograft, allograft, and heterograft. We used three shapes of grafts, including block, crushed, and diced cartilage in the upper, middle, and lower rows. However, in each rabbit, these grafts were divided into two columns of wrapped and unwrapped grafts, with human amniotic membrane (HAM) grafted on each side of the rabbit's back. RESULTS In total, 60 specimens underwent histopathological examination. No inflammation was observed in about 50% of the blockshaped conchal cartilages with HAM, and in 50%, less than 25 inflammatory cells per unit were seen. The prognosis and absorption of autograft specimens in block-shaped cartilages with HAM were significantly better compared with other shapes of cartilages with HAM and without HAM. The proliferation rate of fibroblasts in autograft and allograft specimens was more than that in heterograft specimens with HAM. CONCLUSION Our findings have demonstrated the new role of HAM in clinical applications, indicating that HAM may be used as a low-cost, easily accessible alternative for wrapping in cartilage grafts instead of fascia or surgicel in early future. It is useful for improving the long-term outcomes and decreasing the resorption rate.

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

3.8
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