| Abstract: | Three biologic dressings [split-thickness allogeneic skin (STS)], allogeneic peritoneum (P), and xenogenic porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS)] were studied to determine their effects on bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction, vascularization, and overall healing and to compare the effects of these dressings with the effects of a nonbiologic dressing, a nonadherent synthetic pad (NASP). A medial wound (3 cm in diameter) and 2 lateral wounds (2 cm in diameter) were created at the junction of the proximal and middle thirds of each metacarpus and metatarsus in 5 horses. Each medial wound and the proximolateral wound received an STS, P, PSIS, or NASP dressing on day 8 after wounding. The other lateral wound received an NASP dressing. Bacterial proliferation, inflammatory reaction (histologic changes), and drhessing vascularization were evaluated 6 d after application of the dressing. Percentages of contraction and epithelialization, as well as healing time, were determined when the wounds had completely epithelialized. The practical applicability of the different dressings to equine wound management was also assessed. No significant difference was detected in the parameters evaluated among the treated wounds or between the treated and control wounds. The biologic dressings had no effect on infection, inflammatory response, or healing time. Vascularization was not identified in any of the biologic dressings. The PSIS and P dressings required numerous applications over the study period. The STS dressings are more practical than PSIS and P dressings owing to ease of application and stability. Thus, these biologic dressings offer no apparent advantage over a nonbiologic dressing for treatment of small granulating wounds. |
