title: Healed porcine incisions previously treated with a surgical incision management system: mechanical, histomorphometric, and gene expression properties.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Computer and bench models have shown previously that surgical incision management with negative pressure (SIM) immediately decreases lateral tissue tension and increases incisional apposition. Better apposition is known to improve healing. Thus, SIM was hypothesized to improve the quality of incisional healing. This study evaluated the impact that 5 days of SIM had on mechanical properties and associated changes in the histology/histomorphometry and gene expression of healed porcine incisions.
  
  
  METHODS
  One incision in each of the 4 pairs of contralateral, sutured, full-thickness incisions in each of 6 Yucatan swine were treated with either SIM (Prevena™ Incision Management System; n = 24 incisions/treatment group) or standard of care (SOC; sterile absorbent abdominal pads; n = 24/group) for 5 days, after which both groups received SOC for an additional 5 days. Biopsies for gene-expression analyses were collected on days 5 (n = 6 pairs/group), 20 (n = 6 pairs/group), and 40 (n = 12 pairs/group). On day 40, the animals were killed, after which healed incisions were harvested for mechanical testing (n = 12/group) and histologic/histomorphometric evaluation (n = 12/group).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compared with SOC-treated incisions, SIM-treated incisions had significantly improved (p < 0.05) mechanical properties (strain energy density, peak strain) and a narrower scar/healed area in the deep dermis on day 40. Differences in gene expression between SOC- and SIM-treated specimens were observed primarily on day 5. The SIM-treated specimens had significantly fewer genes, which were differentially expressed and showed reduced upregulation of genes associated with inflammation, hypoxia, retardation of reepithelialization, impaired wound healing, and scarring.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Early application of SIM improved the quality of healed porcine incisions in terms of mechanical, histomorphometric, and gene-expression properties.
  
  
  METHODS
  This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .
authors.affiliation: KCI, 6203 Farinon Drive, San Antonio, TX, USA, kilpadid@kci1.com.
authors.forename: Deepak V
authors.initials: DV
authors.lastname: Kilpadi
authors.forename: Chris
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Lessing
authors.forename: Kathleen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Derrick
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D015870:Gene Expression; D020869:Gene Expression Profiling; D054843:Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy / Q000379:methods; D013552:Swine; D014014:Tissue Adhesives; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000502:physiology*
chemical_list: D014014:Tissue Adhesives