Comparison of Survival of SureDerm(R), Permacol(R) Graft in Mouse.
- Author:
Jung Soo HONG
1
;
Woo Seob KIM
;
Young Il YU
;
Han Koo KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea. kimws@cau.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
SureDerm(R);
Permacol(R);
Graft survival
- MeSH:
Acellular Dermis;
Animals;
Cadaver;
Graft Survival;
Humans;
Mice*;
Skin;
Survival Rate;
Transplants*
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
2007;34(6):685-690
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Numerous materials, both autologous and nonautologous, have been used for augmentation of sunken areas and each has its own limitations. The ideal material for augmentation should not be absorbed in any manner. This study is designed to assess the survival of SureDerm(R), Permacol(R) graft according to the volume and histologic change. METHODS: Twenty four mice, weighing about 50 grams and of 5 weeks of age were used. SureDerm(R) is an acellular dermal matix obtained from human cadaveric skin. Permacol(R) is a porcine derived acellular dermal matrix whose manufacture involves trypsinisation, solvent extraction. Graft pieces standardized to 1x1cm size were used in each group. The implanted material were taken 1, 4, 8 and 12 weeks later, respectively. The changes of graft volume during the graft period were measured on initial, 1, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The initial shape of graft was maintained up to 12 weeks in Permacol(R) graft group and mean survival rate was 80.36+/-8.21% in SureDerm(R), 89.57+/-6.39% in Permacol(R)(p=0.01). The volume of each graft decreased 29% from initial volume on 12 weeks in SureDerm(R), 18% in Permacol(R). The structure of Permacol(R) remained until 12 week after implantation. CONCLUSION: Our experimental study suggests that Permacol(R) could be a safe material as an implant for permanent augmentation. However, There are further study remained for antigenicity of these material, and the choice of graft for augmentation should be remained to the clinical situations.
