Evolution of a Biosynthetic Temporary Skin Substitute: A Preliminary Study

OBJECTIVE To compare PermeaDerm to first temporary biosynthetic skin substitute (Biobrane, cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in 1979). METHODS Different temporary skin substitutes (Biobrane, PermeaDerm, and PermeaDerm derivatives) were tested for physical differences, impact on healing wounds, inflammatory response, and ability to allow adequate growth of dermal fibroblasts and mesenchymal stem cells without accumulation of excessive scar-forming myofibroblasts. Proliferation of fibroblasts and stem cells on various skin substitutes was measured, and myofibroblast marker accumulation was evaluated by the expression of α-smooth muscle actin and fibronectin. Fibroblast migration was measured by tracking viable cells with MTT [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide] dye. RESULTS In vivo testing shows PermeaDerm works well as a temporary skin substitute, performing better than Biobrane with respect to inflammation and fluid accumulation. Tissue culture techniques revealed that cells on PermeaDerm grow in a more uniform fashion and migrated to a greater extent than cells on Biobrane. Furthermore, cells grown in the presence of PermeaDerm expressed lower levels of the myofibroblast markers α-smooth muscle actin and fibronectin than cells grown on Biobrane. CONCLUSION PermeaDerm with variable porosity possesses all attributes and properties known to be important for a successful temporary skin substitute and enables the clinician to control porosity from essentially zero to what the wound requires. The ability of the clinician to minimize wound desiccation without fluid accumulation is related to the reduction of punctate scarring.