Hyaluronic acid biomaterial for human tissue-engineered skin substitutes: Preclinical comparative in vivo study of wound healing

BACKGROUND

There is not an ideal biomaterial for tissue-engineered skin substitutes (TESSs), and most of the studies or existing therapies use xenogeneic origin natural biomaterials or biosynthetic scaffolds.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse clinical, histological integration and homeostasis parameters of a human TESS manufactured with fibrin-hyaluronic acid biomaterial (HA-Skin), grafted in immunodeficient mice for 8 weeks, and compared with the gold standard treatment (Autograft), a human TESS manufactured with fibrin-agarose biomaterial (AG-Skin) and secondary wound healing dressings.

METHODS

Human TESSs and autografts were implanted into BALB/c mice after surgical excision. Secondary wound healing approach was achieved with biosynthetic collagen wound dressing (Biobrane^® ) and fibrin-hyaluronic acid or fibrin-agarose biomaterial without cells (Total N = 44). Clinical integration and homeostasis parameters were evaluated every two weeks for two months. Histological and immunohistochemical analyses were performed four and eight weeks after grafting.

RESULTS

HA-Skin, AG-Skin and Autograft groups showed a proper clinical integration and epithelization eight weeks later. Scar evaluation revealed better results for Autograft and HA-Skin. Homeostasis analysis indicated similar values of transepidermal water loss and elasticity between HA-Skin (6.42 ± 0.75 g/h/m² , 0.42 ± 0.08 AU), Autograft (6.91 ± 1.28 g/h/m² , 0.40 ± 0.08 AU) and healthy mouse skin (6.40 ± 0.43 g/h/m² , 0.35 ± 0.03 AU). Histological results showed that human TESSs and autografts presented better skin structuration and higher expression of cytokeratins.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that human TESS based on fibrin-hyaluronic acid biomaterial could be suitable for clinical application in the treatment of several dermatological pathologies (wound healing).