Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

A Comparison of Human and Porcine Acellularized Dermis: Interactions with Human Fibroblasts In Vitro

Armour, Alexis D. M.D., M.Sc.; Fish, Joel S. M.D., M.Sc.; Woodhouse, Kimberly A. P.Eng., Ph.D.; Semple, John L. M.D., M.Sc.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: March 2006 - Volume 117 - Issue 3 - p 845-856
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000204567.28952.9d
EXPERIMENTAL: ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Buy

Background: Dermal substitutes derived from xenograft materials require elaborate processing at a considerable cost. Acellularized porcine dermis is a readily available material associated with minimal immunogenicity. The objective of this study was to evaluate acellularized pig dermis as a scaffold for human fibroblasts.

Methods: In vitro methods were used to evaluate fibroblast adherence, proliferation, and migration on pig acellularized dermal matrix. Acellular human dermis was used as a control.

Results: Pig acellularized dermal matrix was found to be inferior to human acellularized dermal matrix as a scaffold for human fibroblasts. Significantly more samples of human acellularized dermal matrix (83 percent, n = 24; p < 0.05) demonstrated fibroblast infiltration below the cell-seeded surface than pig acellularized dermal matrix (31 percent, n = 49). Significantly more (p < 0.05) fibroblasts infiltrated below the surface of human acellularized dermal matrix (mean, 1072 ± 80 cells per section; n = 16 samples) than pig acellularized dermal matrix (mean, 301 ± 48 cells per section; n = 16 samples). Fibroblasts migrated significantly less (p < 0.05) distance from the cell-seeded pig acellularized dermal matrix surface than in the human acellularized dermal matrix (78.8 percent versus 38.3 percent cells within 150 μm from the surface, respectively; n = 5). Fibroblasts proliferated more rapidly (p < 0.05) on pig acellularized dermal matrix (n = 9) than on the human acellularized dermal matrix (7.4-fold increase in cell number versus 1.8-fold increase, respectively; n = 9 for human acellularized dermal matrix). There was no difference between the two materials with respect to fibroblast adherence (8120 versus 7436 average adherent cells per section, for pig and human acellularized dermal matrix, respectively; n = 20 in each group; p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest that substantial differences may exist between human fibroblast behavior in cell–matrix interactions of porcine and human acellularized dermis.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, and the Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering, University of Toronto; and the Ross Tilley Burn Center and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Science Center.

Received for publication October 22, 2002; revised September 27, 2004.

Presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons Meeting, in Jasper, Alberta, Canada, June 6 through 9, 2001.

John Laurie Semple, M.D., M.Sc., Division of Plastic Surgery, Sunnybrook and Women's Health Sciences Center, 2075 Bayview Avenue, M1-522, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada, john.semple@sw.ca

©2006American Society of Plastic Surgeons