Animal study: A comparative evaluation in the safety of mesh hydrogel and hydrocolloid for partial thickness wound of skin

Opart Pinchai; Wimon Sirimaharaj; Kanarat Nalumpang; Robert Molloid; Kanit Sananpanich; Amnat Yusuk

Authors

Opart Pinchai Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Wimon Sirimaharaj Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Kanarat Nalumpang Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Robert Molloid Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Kanit Sananpanich Department of Orthopeadics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Amnat Yusuk Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Keywords:

hydrogel wound dressing

Abstract

Objective To compare the safety of mesh hydrogel and hydrocolloid for partial thickness wound of skin in rats.

Methods Twelve rats were used in this study, 6 rats for control group and 6 rats for study group. In the control group, 0.5 cm diameter skin abrasion was created on the right side of back. The hydrocolloid were applied on the abrasion of right side and applied on the intact skin of left side of back of rats. In the study group, 0.5 cm diameter skin abrasion was created on the right side of back. The mesh hydrogel were applied on the abrasion of right side and applied on intact skin of left side of back of rats. The evaluations are [1] Dermal irritancy [2] Histologic change [3] Liver function [4] Kidney function.

Results There is no signi fi cant difference of erythema and edema on the abrasion or intact skin of rats between two groups at 24 and 72 hours after applying the dressing materials. There are no signi fi cant differences of histologic change, liver function and kidney function between two groups.

Conclusion There is no signi fi cant difference in safety of mesh hydrogel and hydrocolloid for partial thickness wound of skin in rats.

References

Kokabi M, Sirousazar M, Hassan ZM. PVA-clay nanocomposite hydrogels for wound dress-ing. Eur Polym J. 2007;43:773-81.

Hashim K, Halim AS, Nor MT, Khairul Z, Dahl-an M, Yoshii F. PVA – Sago starch hydrogel and the preliminary clinical animal study of the hydrogel. J Wound Care. 2005;14:19-31.

Wang W. A novel hydrogel crosslinked hyalu-ronau with glycol chitosan. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17:125-65.

Thorn RM, Greenman J, Austin A. An in vitro study of antimicrobial activity and effi cacy of iodine-generating hydrogel dressing. J Wound Care. 2006;15:305-10.

Ishihara M, Obara K, Nakamura S, Fugita M, Masuoka K, Kanatani Y, et al. Chitosan hydro-gel as a drug delivery carrier to control angio-genesis. J Artif Organs. 2006;9:8-16.

Tanodekaew S, Prasitsilp M, Swasdison S, Tha-vornyutikarn B, Pothsree T, Pateepasen R. Preparation of acrylic grafted chitin for wound dressing application. Biomaterials. 2004;25: 1453-60.

Nalumpang K, Suebsanit N, Witthayaprapa-korn D, Molloy R. Design and preparation of AMPS – Based hydrogels for biomedical use as wound dressing. Chiang Mai J Sci. 2007;34: 183–9.

Rosiak JM, Rucinska-Reybas A, Pekala W. 1989, U.S. Palent No. 4 871 490.

Draize JH, Woodard G, Calvery HO. Meth-ods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membrane. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1944; 82:377-90.