|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Effective dressings for donor sites or other partial thickness wounds must promote removal of nonviable or necrotic tissue, eradication and prevention of microbial infiltrate, exudate absorbance, and regrowth of healthy epidermis and dermis. There are many commonly used products that facilitate these processes. Established properties of an in situ photopolymerizable semi-interpenetrating network (sIPN) suggest that it is also a viable treatment option. The widely varying material properties suggest that these dressing treatments may elicit different healing responses via different cellular mechanisms. In this study, we sought to resolve the differences in healing between ActicoatTM, sIPN, nonadherent dressing with TisseelTM, and XeroformTM dressing treatments in a porcine partial thickness wound model. Donor site wounds were produced on pigs at two cut depths and dressed with ActicoatTM, sIPN, nonadherent dressing with TisseelTM, and XeroformTM with alternatively placed autografts to provide a control area between each test site. Pigs were euthanized at 4, 7, 14, and 42 days for macroscopic examination and biopsy collection. Biopsies were analyzed histologically by two blinded observers for cellular densities and regional thicknesses within the tissue. sIPN- and XeroformTM-treated wounds were healed by 7 days, and ActicoatTM– and nonadherent dressing with TisseelTM–treated wounds were healed by 14 days. Inflammatory responses were between comparable treatment type across all time periods. Dermal granulation features increased with time but were not significantly different. All dressing treatments elicited wound healing without outstanding toxicity or pathology indicating that sIPN is a comparable and viable treatment for partial thickness wounds.