The Effect of Several Silver-Containing Wound Dressings on Fibroblast Function In Vitro Using the Collagen Lattice Contraction M

2/1/2006
0 Comments
5662 reads

Author(s):

Christine A. Cochrane, PhD;1 Michael Walker, PhD;2 Phil Bowler, MPhil;2 David Parsons, PhD;2 Derek C. Knottenbelt, OBE, DVM&S1

Materials and Methods

Dressings. This study assessed the characteristics of 7 proprietary silver-containing antimicrobial dressings that have all received an appropriate regulatory (eg, US Food and Drug Administration) risk-benefit profile: 3 fibrous dressings—AQUACEL® Ag (ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ, USA; referred to throughout this article as nonwoven A), Acticoat® Absorbent (Smith & Nephew, London, UK; referred to throughout this article as nonwoven B), and SILVERCEL® (Johnson & Johnson Wound Management, Somerville, NJ, USA; referred to throughout this article as nonwoven C); 2 foam dressings—Contreet® Foam (Coloplast, Holtedam, Denmark; referred to throughout this article as foam A) and PolyMem® Silver (Ferris Pharmaceuticals, Burr Ridge, Ill, USA; referred to throughout this article as foam B); a gauze dressing—Urgotul® S.Ag (Laboratoires Urgo, Chenôve, France; referred to throughout this article as gauze); and a nonadhesive polymer hydrogel sheet—SilvaSorb® (AcryMed/Medline, Mundelein, Ill, USA; referred to throughout this paper as hydrogel). The physical and chemical characteristics of these dressings have been previously described.7
Cell culture. Granulation tissue fibroblasts (GTFs) were taken from slow-healing areas of equine wounds, and the fibroblast-seeded collagen gels were prepared as described previously.⁶ Briefly, tissue samples were immediately transferred to a sterile Petri dish, washed in Hanks’ balanced salt solution (HBSS) (all cell culture materials were supplied by Gibco, UK unless otherwise stated), and cut into 3–5 mm² pieces before being placed into 25 cm² tissue culture flasks containing media (prepared by adding 10% fetal calf serum to Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium [DMEM], supplemented with 20 mM Hepes buffer, 100 µg/mL gentamicin, and 0.5 µg/mL amphotericin B) and incubated in a 5% carbon dioxide/95% air environment at 37˚C.
Following incubation, the fibroblasts were harvested from stock dishes and plated in 35 mm 6-well plates at a concentration of 1 x 106 cells/mL in molten type I collagen (Sigma, UK) prior to the application of moistened dressings.
Gel contraction and viability assays. For gel contraction and viability assays, 0.5 g of each silver-containing wound dressing was pre-moistened with sterile saline (0.5 mL) and placed onto the surface of the fibroblast-seeded collagen gel, and 0.5 mL of sterile saline was applied directly to the control gel with no dressing. Gel contraction measurements were made using calipers (mm) at 24-hour intervals over a period of 96 hours. Quantitative evaluation of fibroblast viability was carried out at the end of the experiment (ie, after 96 hours) using the trypan blue exclusion assay. Six replicates were performed for each dressing plus controls.
Statistical analysis. A multivariate analysis of variance (Duncan’s multiple comparison test) was used to analyze the data.

Results

To more accurately measure the individual effect of a dressing on fibroblast contraction, a percentage area of collagen gel contraction relative to the control was calculated for each dressing using the equations outlined as follows. Equation 1 shows the calculation for the absolute area of contraction (AAC) for the control and each individual dressing expressed as a percentage:

AAC= [initial radius of the gel (ie, 35 mm)]² – (final radius)² X 100 ÷ (initial radius)²

Equation 2 expresses the AAC of each dressing as a percentage contraction relative to the control:

% contraction relative to control =AAC dressing ÷ AAC control X 100

References:

1. Cutting KF. Wound healing, bacteria and topical therapies. EWMA J. 2003;3(1):17–19.
2. Klasen HJ. A historical review of the use of silver in the treatment of burns. II. Renewed interest for silver. Burns. 2000;26(2):131–138.
3. Lansdown AB, Williams A. How safe is silver in wound care? J Wound Care. 2004;13(4):131–136.
4. Carlson MA, Longaker MT. The fibroblast-populated collagen matrix as a model of wound healing: a review of the evidence. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(2):134–147.
5. Bell E, Ivarsson B, Merrill C. Production of a tissue-like structure by contraction of collagen lattices by human fibroblasts of different proliferative potential in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1979;76(3):1274–1278.
6. Cochrane CA, Shearwood C, Walker M, Bowler P, Knottenbelt DC. The application of a fibroblast gel contraction model to assess the cytotoxicity of topical antimicrobial agents. WOUNDS. 2003;15(8):265–271.
7. Parsons D, Bowler PG, Myles V, Jones S. Silver antimicrobial dressings in wound management: a comparison of antibacterial, physical, and chemical characteristics. WOUNDS. 2005;17(8):222–232.
8. Ehrlich HP, Rajaratnam JB. Cell locomotion forces versus cell contraction forces for collagen lattice contraction: an in vitro model of wound contraction. Tissue Cell. 1990;22(4):407–417.
9. Germain L, Jean A, Auger FA, Garrel DR. Human wound healing fibroblasts have greater contractile properties than dermal fibroblasts. J Surg Res. 1994;57(2):268–273.
10. Jones S, Bowler PG, Walker M. Antimicrobial activity of silver-containing dressings is influenced by dressing conformability with a wound surface. WOUNDS. 2005;17(9):263–270.