Emre Özer, Aret Çerçi Özkan, Mert Ersan, Uğur Anıl Bingöl, Başak Aru, Şükrü Yıldırım, Murat Aydın Sav, Neslihan Taşdelen, Aylin Yaba Uçar
{"title":"New Wrapping Biomaterial Alternatives for Fascia in Diced Cartilage Grafts: A Comparative Study on Viability and Stability.","authors":"Emre Özer, Aret Çerçi Özkan, Mert Ersan, Uğur Anıl Bingöl, Başak Aru, Şükrü Yıldırım, Murat Aydın Sav, Neslihan Taşdelen, Aylin Yaba Uçar","doi":"10.1007/s00266-025-04770-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this in vivo study is to compare cartilage viability within diced cartilage grafts from the perspective of three wrapping biomaterials Group A acellular dermal matrix (FlexHD®), Group T bovine pericardium (Tutopatch®), and Group F allogeneic human fascia for a possible implementation in the clinical use.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This in vivo study was conducted on 5 SCID (Severe Combined Immunodeficiency)/Gamma Mice with a duration of eight weeks. The cartilage within composite grafts were obtained from the remaining cartilage following secondary rhinoplasty performed on a single donor. Diced cartilage grafts were wrapped separately with acellular dermal matrix (ADM), bovine pericardium, and fascia to form three groups. A total of five mice were utilized in all three experimental groups, with a total of 15 experimental materials being examined. One composite graft from each group was implanted into the backs of the mice. The effects of the biomaterials on the viability and stability of the composite grafts were evaluated. Viability was evaluated through LIVE/DEAD cell analysis and histopathological examinations. Stability was assessed by comparing weight and volume changes of the grafts, measured using a precision balance and computed tomography, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant increase in weight was found in the fascia group after implantation (p < 0.05). In the ADM (Group A) and bovine pericardium (Group T), no statistically significant weight change was observed (p > 0.05). A significant increase in volume was found in the ADM (Group A) group after implantation (p < 0.05). Flow cytometry showed the highest cartilage viability percentage in the fascia (Group F) and the lowest in the ADM (Group A). No significant difference was found in viability percentages between the groups. Histopathological examinations supported the flow cytometry findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study revealed that cartilage grafts wrapped in allogenic fascia (Group F) showed better viability and stability compared with ADM (Group A) and bovine pericardium (Group T). This suggests that while fascia may remain the gold standard, alternative biomaterials also hold potential. Further experimental and clinical studies with larger sample sizes are needed to support these findings.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04770-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this in vivo study is to compare cartilage viability within diced cartilage grafts from the perspective of three wrapping biomaterials Group A acellular dermal matrix (FlexHD®), Group T bovine pericardium (Tutopatch®), and Group F allogeneic human fascia for a possible implementation in the clinical use.
Materials and methods: This in vivo study was conducted on 5 SCID (Severe Combined Immunodeficiency)/Gamma Mice with a duration of eight weeks. The cartilage within composite grafts were obtained from the remaining cartilage following secondary rhinoplasty performed on a single donor. Diced cartilage grafts were wrapped separately with acellular dermal matrix (ADM), bovine pericardium, and fascia to form three groups. A total of five mice were utilized in all three experimental groups, with a total of 15 experimental materials being examined. One composite graft from each group was implanted into the backs of the mice. The effects of the biomaterials on the viability and stability of the composite grafts were evaluated. Viability was evaluated through LIVE/DEAD cell analysis and histopathological examinations. Stability was assessed by comparing weight and volume changes of the grafts, measured using a precision balance and computed tomography, respectively.
Results: A significant increase in weight was found in the fascia group after implantation (p < 0.05). In the ADM (Group A) and bovine pericardium (Group T), no statistically significant weight change was observed (p > 0.05). A significant increase in volume was found in the ADM (Group A) group after implantation (p < 0.05). Flow cytometry showed the highest cartilage viability percentage in the fascia (Group F) and the lowest in the ADM (Group A). No significant difference was found in viability percentages between the groups. Histopathological examinations supported the flow cytometry findings.
Conclusion: Our study revealed that cartilage grafts wrapped in allogenic fascia (Group F) showed better viability and stability compared with ADM (Group A) and bovine pericardium (Group T). This suggests that while fascia may remain the gold standard, alternative biomaterials also hold potential. Further experimental and clinical studies with larger sample sizes are needed to support these findings.
Level of evidence i: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
期刊介绍:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP).
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.