FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire2004; 68(1); 49-55;

Effects of 3 biologic dressings on healing of cutaneous wounds on the limbs of horses.

Abstract: Three biologic dressings [split-thickness allogeneic skin (STS)], allogeneic peritoneum (P), and xenogenic porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS)] were studied to determine their effects on bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction, vascularization, and overall healing and to compare the effects of these dressings with the effects of a nonbiologic dressing, a nonadherent synthetic pad (NASP). A medial wound (3 cm in diameter) and 2 lateral wounds (2 cm in diameter) were created at the junction of the proximal and middle thirds of each metacarpus and metatarsus in 5 horses. Each medial wound and the proximolateral wound received an STS, P, PSIS, or NASP dressing on day 8 after wounding. The other lateral wound received an NASP dressing. Bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction (histologic changes), and drhessing vascularization were evaluated 6 d after application of the dressing. Percentages of contraction and epithelialization, as well as healing time, were determined when the wounds had completely epithelialized. The practical applicability of the different dressings to equine wound management was also assessed. No significant difference was detected in the parameters evaluated among the treated wounds or between the treated and control wounds. The biologic dressings had no effect on infection, inflammatory response, or healing time. Vascularization was not identified in any of the biologic dressings. The PSIS and P dressings required numerous applications over the study period. The STS dressings are more practical than PSIS and P dressings owing to ease of application and stability. Thus, these biologic dressings offer no apparent advantage over a nonbiologic dressing for treatment of small granulating wounds. Trois pansements biologiques [peau allogène séparée (STS), péritoine allogène (P), et sous-muqueuse intestinale de porc xénogénique (PSIS)] ont été étudiés afin de déterminer leur influence sur la prolifération bactérienne, la réaction inflammatoire, la vascularisation et la guérison générale ainsi que de comparer les effets de ces pansements à ceux d’un pansement non-biologique, un tampon synthétique non-adhérent (NASP). Une plaie médiale (3 cm de diamètre) et 2 plaies latérales (2 cm de diamètre) ont été produites à la jonction du tiers proximal et du tiers médial de chaque métacarpe et métatarse chez 5 chevaux. Chaque plaie médiale et la plaie proximo-latérale ont reçu un pansement STS, P, PSIS ou NASP au jour 8 après induction de la plaie. L’autre plaie latérale reçue un bandage NASP. La prolifération bactérienne, la réaction inflammatoire (changements histologiques) et la vascularisation du pansement ont été évaluées 6 j après l’application du pansement. Les pourcentages de contraction et d’épithélialisation, de même que le temps de guérison, ont été déterminés lorsque les blessures étaient complètement épithélialisées. L’applicabilité pratique des différents pansements pour soigner les plaies chez les chevaux a aussi été évaluée. Aucune différence significative n’a été détectée parmi les paramètres évalués entre les plaies traitées ou entre les plaies traitées et les plaies témoins. Les pansements biologiques n’avaient aucun effet sur la présence d’infection, la réponse inflammatoire ou le temps de guérison. Aucune vascularisation ne fut détectée chez les pansements biologiques. Les pansements PSIS et P ont nécessité de nombreuses applications durant la période d’essai. Les pansements STS sont plus pratiques que les pansements PSIS et P étant donné leur facilité d’application et leur stabilité. Ainsi, les pansements biologiques n’offrent pas d’avantages apparents sur les pansements non-biologiques pour le traitement des petites plaies de granulation. (Traduit par Docteur Serge Messier)
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2004-02-26 PubMed ID: 14979435PubMed Central: PMC1142129
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Clinical Trial
  • Journal Article
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research looks into the effects of three types of biologic dressings on healing cutaneous wounds in horses, compared to a synthetic non-biologic dressing. Interestingly, the study found no significant difference in results between the biologic and non-biologic dressings on various parameters such as infection, inflammatory response, or healing time.

Methodology of the Study

  • The experiment was conducted using three types of biologic dressings: Split-thickness allogeneic skin (STS), allogeneic peritoneum (P), and xenogenic porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS).
  • The dressings were tested on wounds created on the limbs of five horses, specifically at the junction of the proximal and middle thirds of each metacarpus and metatarsus.
  • The study also included a non-biologic dressing – a nonadherent synthetic pad (NASP) – for comparative analysis.
  • Each wound was dressed with one of the four types on the 8th day after the wounds were created. The effects of the dressings on bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction, and vascularization were assessed after 6 days of application.
  • The time taken for the wounds to completely heal, and the percentages of contraction and epithelialization during healing were also recorded.

Findings of the Study

  • The study found no significant difference in bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction, vascularization, healing time, or the degree of contraction and epithelialization among the wounds treated with biologic dressings or the non-biologic NASP dressing.
  • None of the biologic dressings showed vascularization – the creation of new blood vessels.
  • The practical applicability of the dressings was also evaluated. It was observed that STS dressings were easier to apply and more stable than PSIS and P dressings, which required multiple applications over the study period.

Conclusion

  • The findings of the study imply that the tested biologic dressings do not offer any apparent advantage over a non-biologic dressing in the treatment of small granulating wounds in horses.
  • In terms of application and stability, the non-biologic NASP dressing and the biologic STS dressing were observed to be more practical compared to the other types of dressings.

Cite This Article

APA
Gomez JH, Schumacher J, Lauten SD, Sartin EA, Hathcock TL, Swaim SF. (2004). Effects of 3 biologic dressings on healing of cutaneous wounds on the limbs of horses. Can J Vet Res, 68(1), 49-55.

Publication

Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire
ISSN: 0830-9000
NlmUniqueID: 8607793
Country: Canada
Language: English
Volume: 68
Issue: 1
Pages: 49-55

Researcher Affiliations

Gomez, Jorge H
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA. gomezjh@vetmed.auburn.edu
Schumacher, Jim
    Lauten, Susan D
      Sartin, Eva A
        Hathcock, Terri L
          Swaim, Steven F

            MeSH Terms

            • Animals
            • Biological Dressings / veterinary
            • Horses / injuries
            • Metacarpus
            • Metatarsus
            • Skin / injuries
            • Wound Healing
            • Wounds, Penetrating / therapy
            • Wounds, Penetrating / veterinary

            References

            This article includes 32 references
            1. May SR. The effects of biological wound dressings on the healing process.. Clin Mater 1991;8:243–249.
              pubmed: 10149129
            2. Purna SK, Babu M. Collagen based dressings — a review.. Burns 2000;26:54–62.
              pubmed: 10630321
            3. Luterman A, Kraft E, Bookless S. Biological dressings: an appraisal of current practices.. J Burn Care Rehabil 1980;1:18–22.
            4. Hunt TK. Basic principles of wound healing.. J Trauma 1990;30:S122–S128.
              pubmed: 2254971
            5. Rappaport I, Pepino AT, Dietrick W. Early use of xenografts as a biological dressing in burn trauma.. Am J Surg 1970;120:144–148.
              pubmed: 4917309
            6. Zapata-Sirvent R, Hansbrough JF, Carrol W, Johnson R, Wakimoto A. Comparison of biobrane and scarlet red dressings for treatment of donor site wounds.. Arch Surg 1995;120:743–745.
              pubmed: 3890805
            7. Frank DH, Watchel T, Frank HA, Sanders R. Comparison of biobrane, porcine, and humal allograft as biological dressings for burn wounds.. J Burn Care Rehabil 1983;4:186–190.
            8. Tavis MJ, Thornton JW, Harney JH, Woodroof A, Bartlett. Graft adherence to deepithelialized surfaces.. Ann Surg 1976;184:594–600.
              pmc: PMC1345489pubmed: 791163
            9. Spence RJ, Wong L. The enhancement of wound healing with human skin allografts.. Surg Clin North Am 1977;77:731–745.
              pubmed: 9194889
            10. Doillon CJ, Silver FH. Collagen-based wound dressing: effects of hyaluronic acid and fibronectin on wound healing.. Biomaterials 1986;7:3–8.
              pubmed: 3955155
            11. Boykin JV, Molnar JA. Burn scar and skin equivalents.. In: Cohen IK, Diegelmann RF, Lindlab WJ, eds. Wound healing. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1992:523–537.
            12. Sakiel S, Grzybowski J. Clinical application of new bovine collagen membranes as a partial-thickness burn wound dressing.. Polim Med 1995;25:19–24.
              pubmed: 8610062
            13. Shettigar UR, Jagannathan R, Natarajan R. Collagen film for burn dressings reconstituted from animal intestines.. Artif Organs 1982;6:256–260.
              pubmed: 7181726
            14. Horch RE, Stark B. Comparison of the effect of a collagen dressing and a polyurethane dressing on the healing of split thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites.. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg 1998;32:407–413.
              pubmed: 9862108
            15. Brehm W, Wampfler B, Imhof A, Furst A, Dressel C. Experiences with the application of VET BIO SIS T in equids.. In: Proceedings 10th Annu ESVOT Congress 2000:130.
            16. Winkler JT, Swaim SF, Sartin EA, Henderson RA, Welch JA. The effect of a porcine-derived small intestinal submucosa product on wounds with exposed bone in dogs.. Vet Surg 2002;31:541–551.
              pubmed: 12415523
            17. Yvorchuk-St Jean K, Gaughan E, St Jean G, Frank R. Evaluation of a porous bovine collagen membrane bandage for management of wounds in horses.. Am J Vet Res 1995;56:1663–1667.
              pubmed: 8599530
            18. Bertone A, Sullins KE, Stashak TS, Norrdin RW. Effect of wound location and the use of topical collagen gel on exuberant granulation tissue formation and wound healing in the horse and pony.. Am J Vet Res 1985;46:1438–1444.
              pubmed: 4026023
            19. Swaim SF, Gillete RL, Sartin EA, Hinkle SH, Coolman SL. Effects of a hydrolyzed collagen dressing on the healing of open wounds in dogs.. Am J Vet Res 2000;61:1574–1578.
              pubmed: 11131601
            20. Fawcett DW. In: Bloom & Fawcett. A textbook of histology. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1994:134–142,160–161.
            21. Ryan TJ. Wound dressing.. Dermatol Clin 1993;11:207–213.
              pubmed: 8435913
            22. Wilson DA, Adelstein EH, Keegan KG, Barrett BA, Kutz RR. In vitro and in vivo effects of activated macrophage supernatant on distal limb wounds of ponies.. Am J Vet Res 1996;57:1220–1224.
              pubmed: 8836378
            23. Berry II DB, Sullins KE. Effects of topical application of antimicrobials and bandaging on healing and granulation tissue formation in wounds on the distal aspect of the limbs in horses.. Am J Vet Res 2003;64:88–92.
              pubmed: 12518884
            24. Madison JB, Hamir AN, Ehrlich HP, Haberman J, Topkis V, Villasin JV. Effects of a proprietary topical medication on wound healing and collagen deposition in horses.. Am J Vet Res 1991;52:1128–1131.
              pubmed: 1892268
            25. Fretz PB, Martin GS, Jacobs KA. Treatment of exuberant granulation tissue in the horse: evaluation of four methods.. Vet Surg 1983;12:137–140.
            26. Howard RD, Stashak TS, Baxter GM. Evaluation of occlusive dressings for management of full-thickness excisional wounds on the distal portion of the limbs of horses.. Am J Vet Res 1993;54:2150–2154.
              pubmed: 8116952
            27. Winstanley EW. The reaction of hair follicles in the vicinity of full-thickness excised skin wounds in the dog.. J Small Anim Pract 1975;16:661.
              pubmed: 1207075
            28. Swaim SF. Surgery of traumatized skin: management and reconstruction in the dog and cat. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1980:85.
            29. Jacobs KA, Leach DH, Fretz PB, Townsend HGG. Comparative aspects of the healing of excisional wounds on the leg and body of horses.. Vet Surg 1984;13:83–90.
            30. Reagan BJ, Madden MR, Huo J, Mathwich M, Staiano-Coico L. Analysis of cellular and decellular allogeneic dermal grafts for the treatment of full-thickness wounds in a porcine model.. J Trauma 1997;43:458–466.
              pubmed: 9314308
            31. Prevel CD, Eppley BL, Summerlin DJ, Sidner R, Jackson JR. Small intestinal submucosa: utilization as a wound dressing in fullthickness rodents wounds.. Ann Plast Surg 1995;35:381–388.
              pubmed: 8585681
            32. Ford TS, Schumacher J, Brumbaugh GW, Honnas CM. Effects of split-thickness and full-thickness skin grafts on secondary graft contraction in horses.. Am J Vet Res 1992;53:1572–1574.
              pubmed: 1416357

            Citations

            This article has been cited 5 times.
            1. Campebell RC, Oliveira AB, Fagundes JLA, Fortes BNA, Veado HC, Macedo IL, Dallago BSL, Barud HS, Adorno J, Salvador PAV, Santos PS, Castro MB. Evaluation of Bacterial Cellulose/Alginate-Based Hydrogel and Frog Skin Dressings in Equine Skin Wound Healing. Gels 2025 Feb 3;11(2).
              doi: 10.3390/gels11020107pubmed: 39996650google scholar: lookup
            2. Ribeiro G, Carvalho L, Borges J, Prazeres J. The Best Protocol to Treat Equine Skin Wounds by Second Intention Healing: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Animals (Basel) 2024 May 18;14(10).
              doi: 10.3390/ani14101500pubmed: 38791717google scholar: lookup
            3. Ibrahim A, Soliman M, Kotb S, Ali MM. Evaluation of fish skin as a biological dressing for metacarpal wounds in donkeys. BMC Vet Res 2020 Dec 3;16(1):472.
              doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02693-wpubmed: 33272259google scholar: lookup
            4. Tracey AK, Alcott CJ, Schleining JA, Safayi S, Zaback PC, Hostetter JM, Reinertson EL. The effects of topical oxygen therapy on equine distal limb dermal wound healing. Can Vet J 2014 Dec;55(12):1146-52.
              pubmed: 25477541
            5. Spaas JH, Broeckx S, Van de Walle GR, Polettini M. The effects of equine peripheral blood stem cells on cutaneous wound healing: a clinical evaluation in four horses. Clin Exp Dermatol 2013 Apr;38(3):280-4.
              doi: 10.1111/ced.12068pubmed: 23517358google scholar: lookup
            Subscribe to our newsletter
            Join 99,824 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.