A Multicenter Retrospective Study Comparing a Polylactic Acid CAMP With Intact Fish Skin Graft or a Collagen Dressing in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Venous Leg Ulcers
© 2024 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved.
Any views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and/or participants and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy, or position of Wounds or HMP Global, their employees, and affiliates.
Abstract
Background. Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are examples of chronic wounds that pose an ongoing health care challenge. Despite significant progress in managing such wounds, challenges persist that require innovative solutions. Cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products (CAMPs) are advanced therapies designed to facilitate chronic wound healing. Polylactic acid (PLA) is a synthetic material used in alloplastic CAMPs that has shown promise in the management of burns and traumatic injuries. Objective. To retrospectively assess the effect of PLA in promoting chronic wound healing compared with 2 other well-established CAMPs. Materials and Methods. This retrospective chart review, which was conducted in 3 high-volume wound care clinics, aimed to compare the efficacy of 2 advanced wound care products vs a PLA alloplastic CAMP in promoting DFU and VLU closure. The study included 131 wounds treated with a non-CAMP collagen dressing, fish skin grafts (FSGs), or PLA matrices. Inclusion criteria included single Wagner grade 1 or 2 DFUs or Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology classification score C6 VLUs, present for at least 12 to 52 weeks, and measuring between 1 cm² and 20 cm². Patients received weekly treatments with 1 of 3 CAMPs, along with standard care. The primary outcome was time to achieve full healing, and the secondary outcome was the proportion of ulcers healed at 12 weeks. Results. The PLA alloplastic CAMP demonstrated superior outcomes, with a 50% and 20% reduction in time to heal DFUs compared with collagen dressings and FSG, respectively (P < .001). For VLUs, PLA exhibited even more impressive results, achieving 95% and 40% reduction compared with collagen and FSG, respectively (P < .001). PLA allografts displayed a 55% higher rate of full healing by 12 weeks compared with collagen dressings, and a 26% higher rate compared with FSG (P < .001). Conclusion. This study highlights the unique attributes of PLA for achieving wound closure. PLA-based alloplastic CAMPs are promising treatments, offering rapid healing, increased closure rates, and multifaceted benefits for wound healing.
Abbreviations
CAMP, cellular, acellular, and matrix-like product; CI, confidence interval; DFU, diabetic foot ulcer; ECM, extracellular matrix; FSG, fish skin graft; IRB, institutional review board; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; PLA, polylactic acid; VLU, venous leg ulcer.
Introduction
VLUs and DFUs are chronic wound types that pose an ongoing health care challenge.1 CAMPs are advanced wound care therapies consisting of living cells or tissues or engineered materials derived from different sources. These products are designed to promote wound healing and tissue regeneration by providing bioactive components, growth factors, and structural support to the wound bed.2 These therapies have been shown to be effective in promoting healing, particularly in chronic wounds.3 CAMPs are a broad category that encompasses allografts, which are tissues from a human donor (ie, amniotic membranes or cadaveric skin); xenografts, which are tissues from animal sources (ie, different collagen membranes); and alloplastic grafts, which are fully synthetic biomaterials.4 Although collagen dressings are not classified as CAMPs, they have widely been considered the clinical standard of care for advanced wound management.5 This heterogeneous group of wound care products encompasses dressings that employ a variety of carriers or combining agents with mainly type I collagen derived from bovine, porcine, equine, or avian sources that are used to promote a moist environment, act as a tissue scaffold, and promote the regulation of cells within the wound bed.6 However, although collagen dressings have demonstrated consistent effects in increasing wound healing rates and serving as an effective and safe option for chronic wound management,7 success rates are lower with collagen dressings than with CAMPs. Therefore, alloplastic CAMP grafts are emerging as an attractive treatment option to circumvent the issues associated with allografts, xenografts, and collagen dressings.8,9
PLA is a synthetic material that has been used in alloplastic CAMPs; it has demonstrated healing benefits, particularly in burns and traumatic injuries.10-12 Notably, the results of a recent randomized trial demonstrated that compared with the standard of care, PLA wound closure matrices can reduce the time to healing of DFUs.13 However, because use of PLA is relatively new in wound care, there is a scarcity of scientific reports assessing its effectiveness in promoting chronic wound healing, particularly when compared with other well-established CAMPs. Therefore, the objective of the research presented herein was to perform a multicenter retrospective chart review to compare the effectiveness of collagen dressings as the standard of care, a xenograft (intact fish skin graft, FSG), and a PLA alloplastic CAMP in promoting closure of DFUs and VLUs.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with a single chronic wound (either DFU or VLU) who received care at 1 of 3 treatment centers—2 in Ohio (WAFL, Circleville, OH; Foot and Ankle Physicians of Ohio, Circleville, OH) and 1 in New Jersey (The Wound Institute of Ocean County, Toms River, NJ). The 3 sites are high-volume wound care clinics that are considered regional referral centers. The methodology was reviewed by WCG IRB, and the need for IRB approval was waived due to the nature of the research.
Inclusion criteria included charts from patients with either a single Wagner grade 1 or 2 DFU or a Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology classification C6 VLU. The charts were identified through a database search. In all cases, wound duration of at least 12 to 52 weeks before treatment with CAMPs and size between 1 cm2 and 20 cm2 were required for inclusion. Patients were required to have undergone weekly treatments until healing with only 1 of 3 products: collagen dressings (Fibracol Plus; Solventum), FSG (MariGen; Kerecis), or an alloplastic PLA-guided closure matrix (Supra SDRM; PolyMedics Innovations).
Exclusion criteria included charts with incomplete data, patients who developed wound infections that required the use of systemic antibiotics, patients who were hospitalized for any reason, and patients lost to follow-up. In addition to receiving the active therapy, all patients received the standard of care, which included weekly follow-up visits with debridement, wound care, and offloading with a walking boot for DFU or lower leg compression therapy for VLU. Collagen dressings or CAMPs were applied every week up until the wound was deemed completely closed.
The primary outcome for this chart review was the time to achieve full healing, defined as complete (100%) wound reepithelialization without drainage and/or the need for a dressing. The secondary outcome was the proportion of ulcers healed at 12 weeks.
Continuous data are presented as either mean (standard deviation) or median (range). Discrete data are presented as proportions. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Fisher exact tests, and Gray competing risk models were used to analyze the data by a researcher blinded to the treatment at the 95% CI using the statistical R software (version 4.0.2; The R Core Team, 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing). Multiple comparisons were adjusted using Tukey post hoc tests where applicable.
Results
A total of 131 wounds (patient charts) were included in the study: 49 in the collagen group, 40 in the FSG group, and 42 in the PLA group. Across the different treatment groups, 47 wounds (36%) were identified as VLUs. The patient and baseline wound characteristics are presented in Table 1. No significant difference in demographic or wound characteristics was found at baseline.
Overall, the median time to achieve full healing was 16 weeks in the collagen group (range, 8–29 weeks), 12 weeks in the FSG group (range, 5–21 weeks), and 9 weeks in the PLA group (range, 3–16 weeks). The differences across groups were statistically significant: collagen vs FSG (P = .008), collagen vs PLA (P < .001), and FSG vs PLA (P = .043). Compared with collagen, the use of FSG was associated with 3.8 (95% CI, 0.8–6.8) fewer weeks until healing, whereas the use of PLA was associated with 6.9 (95% CI, 3.9–9.8) fewer weeks until healing. Compared with FSG, PLA took 3.0 (95% CI, 0.9–6.3) fewer weeks to achieve complete healing.
By wound etiology, the median time to achieve full healing in DFUs was 15 weeks in the collagen group (range, 8–29 weeks), 12 weeks in the FSG group (range, 5–20 weeks), and 10 weeks in the PLA group (range, 4–16 weeks): collagen vs FSG (P = .011), collagen vs PLA, (P < .001), and FSG vs PLA (P = .049). The median time to achieve full healing in VLUs was 17 weeks in the collagen group (range, 8–27 weeks), 10 weeks in the FSG group (range, 7–21 weeks), and 6 weeks in the PLA group (range, 3–16 weeks): collagen vs FSG (P = .008), collagen vs PLA (P < .001), and FSG vs PLA (P = .026) (Figure 1). No significant difference in wound size or duration was found between groups at baseline.
Complete healing was achieved by week 12 in 15 of 49 patients treated with collagen (31%), compared with 24 of 40 patients treated with FSG (60%) and 36 of 42 patients treated with PLA (86%) (P < .001) (Table 2). By wound etiology, complete healing was achieved by week 12 in 11 of 34 DFUs managed with collagen (32%), compared with 13 of 24 DFUs managed with FSG (54%) and 22 of 26 DFUs managed with PLA (85%) (P < .001). Similarly, for VLUs, complete healing was achieved by week 12 in 4 of 15 patients treated with collagen (27%), compared with 11 of 16 patients treated with FSG (69%) and 14 of 16 patients treated with PLA (88%) (P = .002) (Figure 2). The competing risk and cumulative incidence for achieving full closure by 12 weeks with collagen, FSG, or PLA was 31% (95% CI, 18%–44%), 62% (95% CI, 45%–76%), and 86% (95% CI, 70%–93%), respectively (Figure 3). The median number of applications of each product was 15 for collagen dressings, 10 for FSG, and 8 for PLA. No complications or adverse events for any of the CAMPs were recorded in the charts.
Discussion
The current study demonstrates that compared with collagen dressings, which are considered the advanced wound care product standard of care, or a well-established acellular xenograft (FSG), the PLA alloplastic CAMP studied was associated with reduced time to healing and significantly increased full healing rates by 12 weeks of treatment in DFUs and VLUs. The use of PLA matrices was associated with a 50% and 20% reduction in the time needed to heal DFUs compared with collagen dressings and FSG, respectively. In the case of VLUs, the reduction observed in the time to heal was even more impressive, at 95% and 40% compared with collagen and FSG, respectively. Furthermore, PLA allografts were associated with a 55% higher rate of full healing by 12 weeks compared with collagen dressings, and a 26% higher rate compared with FSG.
Collagen dressings have been used as the standard of care for wound healing in multiple studies.7 Several articles have shown a healing rate of approximately 30% by 12 weeks with the use of these materials,13-16 which is consistent with the findings of the current study. The collagen in most of these products is usually denatured and does not conserve its native structure; therefore, these products are mainly used as wound modulatory dressings. Cells readily attach to these products, and their collagen content offers molecular targets to saturate and modulate ECM-degrading enzymes such as MMPs.6
In contrast, FSG is a novel xenograft that combines the benefits of the traditional collagen and ECM scaffolding with the anti-inflammatory properties of the unsaturated fatty acids present in cold-water fish tissues.17 A landmark study demonstrated that use of FSG results in a clinically and statistically significant difference in wound healing compared with the standard of care, with 63% of wounds managed with FSG fully healed by 12 weeks,15 which is also consistent with the results of the current study.
PLA alloplastic grafts are a relatively new tool in the chronic wound care armamentarium; however, they have been available for almost 20 years for burn care. The alloplastic graft used in the current study is manufactured as a jellified foam composed of 75% PLA, 15% to 20% ε-caprolactone, and 5% to 10% trimethylene carbonate. The material has a 90% open porosity rate and a bimodal pore distribution range with micropores of 6 µm to 20 µm that are well suited for cell attachment and migration, and macropores of 100 µm to 700 µm for ECM deposition and blood vessel ingrowth.18-20 Therefore, this alloplastic PLA CAMP is initially designed to be used as a scaffold. However, it is also designed to undergo spontaneous hydrolysis upon contact with fluid from the wound bed. This process ultimately cleaves the PLA into lactide monomers, which are then converted into lactate molecules.
Lactate has traditionally been considered a waste product of cellular metabolism. However, recent research has demonstrated that it exerts pleiotropic effects that are beneficial to wound healing.21 These effects include robust increases in neoangiogenesis through direct stimulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway22,23; increases in cell survival; increases in collagen and ECM deposition; and modulation of MMP activity,24-28 profound immunomodulatory effects,29-31 and acidification of the extracellular environment.21,32,33 Taken together, these effects modulate most of the components and main processes of wound healing, thereby changing nonhealing, chronically inflamed tissue into a proliferative wound.
Limitations
Despite its promising results, the current study has some limitations. Its major limitation is the retrospective design. This methodology includes incomplete data sets and intrinsic treatment biases, including that in most cases the therapies were not contemporaneous. However, attempts were made to control recall bias by including data from 3 different centers and performing a blinded data analysis. The multicenter nature of the study is another limitation, because although wound care professionals at all centers generally treat their patients in the same way, there are inherent differences in treatment and management (ie, debridement protocols, nutritional assessment and management, secondary dressings, etc.). However, this limitation was addressed by including treatment arms from all centers in as balanced a way as possible. Nonetheless, a large multicenter randomized clinical trial is needed to control for these pitfalls and ultimately determine efficacy, and to provide insights into the mechanism of action of this novel PLA-based technology in chronic wounds beyond what has already been established in the literature.
Conclusion
The selection of an advanced wound treatment such as a CAMP requires consideration of several factors, including the wound characteristics and physiology, as well as the patient’s personal preferences, such as religious or personal beliefs that may prevent them from using allografts or xenografts. The ideal CAMP should promote rapid healing, be easily integrated into native tissues, avoid triggering an aggressive immune or anaphylactic response, and be easily degraded into nontoxic metabolites.3 Based on the findings of the current study, alloplastic PLA-based grafts fulfill all these criteria, reduce the time to achieve healing of DFUs and VLUs, and increase the odds of achieving full closure by 12 weeks. Thus, PLA-based grafts show promise as another tool in the wound care armamentarium.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Brock A. Liden, DPM1; Tiffany Liu, DPM2; Matthew Regulski, DPM3,4; Melissa Foster, DPM2; Ryan DeLeon, DPM2; Gina Palazzi, DPM2; and Jose L. Ramirez-GarciaLuna, MD, PhD5
Affiliations: 1WAFL, Circleville, OH; 2Foot and Ankle Physicians of Ohio, Circleville, OH; 3The Wound Institute of Ocean County, Toms River, NJ; 4Ocean County Foot and Ankle Surgical Associates, Toms River, NJ; 5Division of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Disclosure: B.A.L, M.R., and J.L.R.G. have received or receive honorariums as consultants for PolyMedics Innovations GmbH. All remaining authors disclose no conflicts of interest. This research was presented at the 2023 Symposium on Advanced Wound Care Fall in Las Vegas, Nevada (November 2-5, 2023).
ORCID: Liden, 0009-0007-6023-2582; Ramirez-GarciaLuna, 0000-0002-3953-9762
Correspondence: Jose L. Ramirez-GarciaLuna, MD, PhD; Division of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, 1650 Cedar Ave Suite C10-124, H3G 1A4 Montreal, QC, Canada; jose.ramirezgarcialuna@mail.mcgill.ca
Manuscript Accepted: June 14, 2024
References
1. Margolis DJ. Epidemiology of Wounds. In: Mani R, Romanelli M, Shukla V, eds. Measurements in Wound Healing: Science and Practice. Springer; 2013:145-153. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-2987-5_8
2. Shih S, Askinas C, Caughey S, et al. Sourcing and development of tissue for transplantation in reconstructive surgery: a narrative review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;83:266-275. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.05.001
3. Hughes OB, Rakosi A, Macquhae F, Herskovitz I, Fox JD, Kirsner RS. A review of cellular and acellular matrix products: indications, techniques, and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3S):138S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002643
4. Snyder D, Sullivan N, Margolis D, Schoelles K. Skin Substitutes for Treating Chronic Wounds. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2020. Accessed July 10, 2023. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554220/
5. Pallaske F, Pallaske A, Herklotz K, Boese-Landgraf J. The significance of collagen dressings in wound management: a review. J Wound Care. 2018;27(10):692-702. doi:10.12968/jowc.2018.27.10.692
6. Brett D. A teview of collagen and collagen-based wound dressings. Wounds. 2008;20(12):347-356.
7. Shu H, Xia Z, Qin X, et al. The clinical efficacy of collagen dressing on chronic wounds: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials. Front Surg. 2022;9:978407. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.978407
8. Mirhaj M, Labbaf S, Tavakoli M, Seifalian AM. Emerging treatment strategies in wound care. Int Wound J. 2022;19(7):1934-1954. doi:10.1111/iwj.13786
9. Horn CP, Fierro AL, Lantis JC. The shift to synthetics: a review of novel synthetic matrices for wound closure. Surg Technol Int. 2023;42:sti42/1711.
10.Nischwitz SP, Popp D, Shubitidze D, et al. The successful use of polylactide wound dressings for chronic lower leg wounds: a retrospective analysis. Int Wound J. 2022;19(5):1180-1187. doi:10.1111/iwj.13713
11.Wardhana A, Valeria M. Efficacy of skin substitutes for management of acute burn cases: a systematic review. Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2022;35(3):227-236.
12.Haller HL, Blome-Eberwein SE, Branski LK, et al. Porcine xenograft and epidermal fully synthetic skin substitutes in the treatment of partial-thickness burns: a literature review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(5):432. doi:10.3390/medicina57050432
13.Liden BA, Ramirez-GarciaLuna JL. Efficacy of a polylactic acid matrix for the closure of Wagner grade 1 and 2 diabetic foot ulcers: a single-center, prospective randomized trial. Wounds. 2023;35(8):E257-E260. doi:10.25270/wnds/23094
14.Husain K, Malik A, Kirchens J, Choi G. A prospective, blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the effect of the synthetic electrospun fiber matrix in the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Foot Ankle Surg Tech Rep Cases. 2024;4(1). doi:10.1016/j.fastrc.2024.100362
15.Lullove EJ, Liden B, McEneaney P, et al. Evaluating the effect of omega-3-rich fish skin in the treatment of chronic, nonresponsive diabetic foot ulcers: penultimate analysis of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Wounds. 2022;34(4):E34-E36. doi:10.25270/wnds/2022.e34e36
16.Lullove EJ, Liden B, Winters C, McEneaney P, Raphael A, Lantis Ii JC. A multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the effect of omega-3-rich fish skin in the treatment of chronic, nonresponsive diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds. 2021;33(7):169-177. doi:10.25270/wnds/2021.169177
17.Fiakos G, Kuang Z, Lo E. Improved skin regeneration with acellular fish skin grafts. Eng Regen. 2020;1:95-101. doi:10.1016/j.engreg.2020.09.002
18.Artel A, Mehdizadeh H, Chiu YC, Brey EM, Cinar A. An agent-based model for the investigation of neovascularization within porous scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A. 2011;17(17-18):2133-2141. doi:10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0571
19.Bružauskaitė I, Bironaitė D, Bagdonas E, Bernotienė E. Scaffolds and cells for tissue regeneration: different scaffold pore sizes—different cell effects. Cytotechnology. 2016;68(3):355-369. doi:10.1007/s10616-015-9895-4
20.Fairag R, Rosenzweig DH, Ramirez-Garcialuna JL, Weber MH, Haglund L. Three-dimensional printed polylactic acid scaffolds promote bone-like matrix deposition in vitro. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11(17):15306-15315. doi:10.1021/acsami.9b02502
21.Haller HL, Sander F, Popp D, et al. Oxygen, pH, lactate, and metabolism-how old knowledge and new insights might be combined for new wound treatment. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(11):1190. doi:10.3390/medicina57111190
22.Hunt TK, Aslam RS, Beckert S, et al. Aerobically derived lactate stimulates revascularization and tissue repair via redox mechanisms. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2007;9(8):1115-1124. doi:10.1089/ars.2007.1674
23.Ring A, Goertz O, Al-Benna S, et al. Accelerated angiogenic induction and vascular integration in a novel synthetic scaffolding matrix for tissue replacement. Int J Artif Organs. 2010;33(12):877-884.
24.Gürünlüoğlu K, Demircan M, Taşçı A, et al. The effects of two different burn dressings on serum oxidative stress indicators in children with partial burn. J Burn Care Res. 2019;40(4):444-450. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irz037
25.Gürünlüoğlu K, Demircan M, Koç A, et al. The effects of different burn dressings on length of telomere and expression of telomerase in children with thermal burns. J Burn Care Res. 2019;40(3):302-311. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irz019
26.Zieker D, Küper M, Löffler M, et al. Lactate induces collagen synthesis, VEGF expression and migration in endothelial cells via generation of superoxide. In: Schumpelick V, Bruch HP, Schackert HK, eds. Chirurgisches Forum und DGAV Forum 2009. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. Springer; 2009:299-301. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00625-8_110
27.Kim SA, Kim HS, Jung JW, Suh SI, Ryoo YW. Poly-L-lactic acid increases collagen gene expression and synthesis in cultured dermal fibroblast (Hs68) through the p38 MAPK pathway. Ann Dermatol. 2019;31(1):97-100. doi:10.5021/ad.2019.31.1.97
28.Ray S, Adelnia H, Ta HT. Collagen and the effect of poly-L-lactic acid based materials on its synthesis. Biomater Sci. 2021;9(17):5714-5731. doi:10.1039/D1BM00516B
29.Caslin HL, Abebayehu D, Pinette JA, Ryan JJ. Lactate is a metabolic mediator that shapes immune cell fate and function. Front Physiol. 2021;12:688485. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.688485
30.Demircan M, Gürünlüoğlu K, Gözükara Bağ HG, et al. Impaction of the polylactic membrane or hydrofiber with silver dressings on the interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor-b3 levels in the blood and tissues of pediatric patients with burns. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2021;27(1):122-131. doi:10.14744/tjtes.2020.30483
31.Li X, Yang Y, Zhang B, et al. Lactate metabolism in human health and disease. Sig Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):1-22. doi:10.1038/s41392-022-01151-3
32.Kemp G, Böning D, Beneke R, Maassen N. Explaining pH change in exercising muscle: lactic acid, proton consumption, and buffering vs. strong ion difference. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006;291(1):R235-R237. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00662.2005
33.Hunt TK, Conolly WB, Aronson SB, Goldstein P. Anaerobic metabolism and wound healing: an hypothesis for the initiation and cessation of collagen synthesis in wounds. Am J Surg. 1978;135(3):328-332. doi:10.1016/0002-9610(78)90061-2