Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyPubMed

MERS versus Standard Surgical Approaches for Porcine Vocal Fold Scarring with Adipose Stem Cell Constructs.

Woo JH., King SN., Hoffman H., Dailey S., Wang S., Christensen MB.

Animal Study on Scar, published in Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (2016) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Animal Study
Journal
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (2016)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
27165681
DOI
10.1177/0194599816645772

Abstract (original English)

Cells, scaffold, and surgical approaches are important for regeneration of the lamina propria of the scarred vocal fold (VF). Microendoscopy of Reinke's space (MERS) is a surgical approach used to access the lamina propria. The present study evaluated MERS in the treatment of VF scarring as compared with standardized approaches for the treatment of VF scarring with adipose stem cell constructs. Animal study. Academic center. VF injury was performed bilaterally to induce scarring in 20 pigs. Eight weeks after injury, pigs were classified into no treatment, minithyrotomy, VF injection, VF incision/dissection, and MERS. All groups (except control) were implanted with adipose stem cell and hyaluronan. Four weeks after treatment, histology for collagen, hyaluronan, and fibronectin; mRNA expression for α-smooth muscle actin, tumor growth factor β1, collagen 1α1, collagen 3α1, matrix metalloproteinase 2, basic fibroblast growth factor, and hepatocyte growth factor; and tissue rheology were evaluated. Differences were measured among surgical approaches for protein levels of collagen, hyaluronan, and fibronectin (P = .0133, P < .0001, and P = .0025, respectively). Fibroblast growth factor, collagen 1α1, and matrix metalloproteinase 2 transcript levels were different among treatment groups (P = .003, P = .0086, and P = .014, respectively), while no differences were measured for α-smooth

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
AnimalsBiomarkersCells, CulturedCicatrixDisease Models, AnimalFemaleFibrin Tissue AdhesiveHydrogelsImmunoenzyme TechniquesLaryngoscopy

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research