An outcome analysis and long-term viability of cryopreserved cultured epidermal allografts. Assessment of the conservation of transplantable human skin allografts

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_SCHIOZER_An_outcome_analysis_and_long_term_viability_of_2013.PDF (3.03 MB)
Citações na Scopus
13
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2013
DOI
SciELO
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
Autores
MUEHLBAUER, Wolfgang
MUNHOZ, Alexandre Mendonca
Citação
ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA, v.28, n.12, p.824-832, 2013
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
PURPOSE: To assess the viability of cultured epithelium and preserved by freezing for periods varying from one month to one year. METHODS: Samples of cultured epithelium were incubated in cryoprotectant medium (Group A), packed in aluminum envelopes and packed in polystyrene boxes. The boxes were subjected to a temperature of-70 degrees C. After freezing for a period of time ranging from one to 12 months, cultured epithelial samples were assessed for their viability by vital staining (Trypan blue) and metabolic analysis based on glucose consumption and lactate production. Samples of not frozen cultured epithelium (Group B) were also tested for viability and the results obtained were used as comparison parameter for the variation of viability. RESULTS: Statistical analysis between the group A and B indicate that the mean age of the donors (p=0.51) and the culture time (p=1.18) showed no statistical difference. In 30 days we obtained 37% of the original viability of cultured epithelium, 25% at six months and one year, less than 15%. This trend was confirmed statistically with a reduction of approximately 1.8% of the original viability epithelium cultured every 30 days of storage. In the analysis by lactate production, similar results were observed. In the analysis by the glucose consumption results were not significant. The viability indices show statistically significant difference between the group A and B (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although cryopreserved cultured epithelium showed significant reduction of viability, all samples remained viable. It was also found that the viability of cryopreserved cultured epithelial decreased as a function of storage time.
Palavras-chave
Tissue Culture Techniques, Tissue Banks, Cryopreservation, Burns
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/5052
Referências
  1. Bravo D, 2000, BURNS, V26, P367, DOI 10.1016/S0305-4179(99)00169-2
  2. Castagnoli C, 2003, BURNS, V29, P759, DOI 10.1016/j.burns.2003.01.001
  3. Chang P, 1998, J BURN CARE REHABIL, V19, P25, DOI 10.1097/00004630-199801000-00007
  4. COHEN BE, 1983, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V71, P79
  5. DECKER RH, 1971, J INVEST DERMATOL, V57, P351, DOI 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12292707
  6. DELUCA M, 1989, BURNS, V15, P303, DOI 10.1016/0305-4179(89)90007-7
  7. DELUCA M, 1992, ARCH DERMATOL, V128, P633, DOI 10.1001/archderm.128.5.633
  8. FAHMY FS, 1993, BRIT J PLAST SURG, V46, P292, DOI 10.1016/0007-1226(93)90005-V
  9. GALLICO GG, 1984, NEW ENGL J MED, V311, P448, DOI 10.1056/NEJM198408163110706
  10. GALLICO GG, 1989, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V84, P1
  11. Gaucher S, 2012, BURNS, V38, P616, DOI 10.1016/j.burns.2011.12.025
  12. Gaucher S, 2012, CELL TISSUE BANK, V13, P147, DOI 10.1007/s10561-011-9239-3
  13. Ghosh M. M., 1995, Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, V16, P407, DOI 10.1097/00004630-199507000-00006
  14. Guenou H, 2009, LANCET, V374, P1745, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61496-3
  15. Hautier A, 2008, CELL TISSUE BANK, V9, P19, DOI 10.1007/s10561-007-9042-3
  16. HILL JC, 1992, J DERMATOL SURG ONC, V18, P396
  17. KONSTANTINOW A, 1991, ANN PLAS SURG, V26, P89, DOI 10.1097/00000637-199101000-00014
  18. Kua EHJ, 2012, CELL TISSUE BANK, V13, P269, DOI 10.1007/s10561-011-9254-4
  19. Li Z, 2012, BURNS, V38, P899, DOI 10.1016/j.burns.2012.02.002
  20. Madden MR, 1996, J TRAUMA, V40, P743, DOI 10.1097/00005373-199605000-00010
  21. MAY SR, 1985, CRYOBIOLOGY, V22, P205, DOI 10.1016/0011-2240(85)90142-7
  22. MAY SR, 1988, CRYOBIOLOGY, V25, P186, DOI 10.1016/0011-2240(88)90025-9
  23. MAY SR, 1988, CRYOBIOLOGY, V25, P516, DOI 10.1016/0011-2240(88)90321-5
  24. Mazur P., 1984, AM J PHYSIOL, V247, P125
  25. Messager S, 2003, SKIN RES TECHNOL, V9, P321, DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0846.2003.00039.x
  26. OLSSON MJ, 1994, ACTA DERM-VENEREOL, V74, P226
  27. PEGG DE, 1989, CRYOBIOLOGY, V26, P212, DOI 10.1016/0011-2240(89)90016-3
  28. Rasmussen Cathy, 2013, Methods Mol Biol, V945, P161, DOI 10.1007/978-1-62703-125-7_11
  29. Rennekampff Hans O., 1996, Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, V17, P522, DOI 10.1097/00004630-199611000-00008
  30. RHEINWALD JG, 1975, CELL, V6, P331, DOI 10.1016/S0092-8674(75)80001-8
  31. ROSEEUW D, 1991, TOXICOL IN VITRO, V5, P579, DOI 10.1016/0887-2333(91)90097-W
  32. TEEPE RGC, 1990, BRIT J DERMATOL, V122, P81, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1990.tb08243.x
  33. Udoh U, 2000, BURNS, V26, P535
  34. Walcerz D B, 1996, Tissue Eng, V2, P85, DOI 10.1089/ten.1996.2.85
  35. Yanaga H, 2001, BURNS, V27, P689, DOI 10.1016/S0305-4179(01)00008-0

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/04