Effect of chymase activity on skin thickness in the Clawn miniature pig hypertrophic scarring model

In Vivo Models for Hypertrophic Scars—A Systematic Review

Backgroundand Objectives: Hypertrophic scars following surgeries or burns present a serious concern for many patients because these scars not only lead to an aesthetical but also to a functional and psychological burden. Treatment of hypertrophic scars is challenging because despite various treatment options, a low level of evidence hinders preference of any specific treatment plan. To properly identify new therapeutic approaches, the use of in vivo models remains indispensable. A gold standard for hypertrophic scars has not been established to date. This review aims at giving a comprehensive overview of the available in vivo models. Materials and Methods: PubMed and CINAHL were queried for currently existing models. Results: Models with mice, rats, rabbits, pigs, guinea pigs and dogs are used in hypertrophic scar research. Rodent models provide the advantage of ready availability and low costs, but the number of scars per animal is limited due to their relatively small body surface, leading to a high number of test animals which should be avoided according to the 3Rs. Multiple scars per animal can be created in the guinea pig and rabbit ear model; but like other rodent models, these models exhibit low transferability to human conditions. Pig models show a good transferability, but are cost-intensive and require adequate housing facilities. Further, it is not clear if a currently available pig model can deliver clinical and histological features of human hypertrophic scars concurrently. Conclusions: None of the analyzed animal models can be clearly recommended as a standard model in hypertrophic scar research because the particular research question must be considered to elect a suitable model.

A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models

Introduction

A reproducible, standardised model for cutaneous scar tissue to assess therapeutics is crucial to the progress of the field. A systematic review was performed to critically evaluate scarring models in both animal and human research.

Method

All studies in which cutaneous scars are modelling in animals or humans were included. Models that were focused on the wound healing process or those in humans with scars from an existing injury were excluded. Ovid Medline^® was searched on 25 February 2019 to perform two near identical searches; one aimed at animals and the other aimed at humans. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for study selection. Full texts of potentially suitable studies were then obtained for analysis.

Results

The animal kingdom search yielded 818 results, of which 71 were included in the review. Animals utilised included rabbits, mice, pigs, dogs and primates. Methods used for creating scar tissue included sharp excision, dermatome injury, thermal injury and injection of fibrotic substances. The search for scar assessment in humans yielded 287 results, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. In all human studies, sharp incision was used to create scar tissue. Some studies focused on patients before or after elective surgery, including bilateral breast reduction, knee replacement or midline sternotomy.

Discussion

The rabbit ear scar model was the most popular tool for scar research, although pigs produce scar tissue which most closely resembles that of humans. Immunodeficient mouse models allow for in vivo engraftment and study of human scar tissue, however, there are limitations relating to the systemic response to these xenografts. Factors that determine the use of animals include cost of housing requirements, genetic traceability, and ethical concerns. In humans, surgical patients are often studied for scarring responses and outcomes, but reproducibility and patient factors that impact healing can limit interpretation. Human tissue use in vitro may serve as a good basis to rapidly screen and assess treatments prior to clinical use, with the advantage of reduced cost and setup requirements.