Co-administration of platelet-rich plasma and small intestinal submucosa is more beneficial than their individual use in promoting acute skin wound healing

Background Acute skin wounds may compromise the skin barrier, posing a risk of infection. Small intestinal submucosa (SIS) is widely used to treat acute and chronic wounds. However, the efficacy of SIS to accelerate wound healing still needs to be improved to meet clinical demands. To tackle this problem, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is used due to its potency to promote proliferation, migration and adhesion of target cells. In this study, we applied PRP and SIS to skin wounds to explore their effects on wound healing by evaluating re-epithelialization, collagen production, angiogenesis and the inflammatory response. Methods A 1 × 1-cm full-thickness skin defect was established in mice. Sixty mice were divided into four treatment groups: PRP + SIS, PRP, SIS and control. On days 3, 5, 7, 10 and 14 post-surgery, tissue specimens were harvested. Haematoxylin and eosin, Masson’s trichrome, immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence double staining were used to visualize epidermal thickness, collagen and vascular regeneration and inflammation. Results Wound contraction in the PRP and PRP + SIS groups was significantly greater, compared with the other groups, on days 3 and 5 post-surgery. A histological analysis showed higher collagen expression in the PRP and PRP + SIS groups on day 7, which was associated with a thicker epidermal layer on day 14. In addition, immunohistochemical staining showed that CD31-positive blood vessels and vascular endothelial growth factor expression in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups were significantly higher, compared with the control group. Furthermore, immunofluorescence double staining showed that the number of M1 and M2 macrophages in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups was higher, compared with the control and SIS groups alone, on day 3. However, on day 7, the number of M1 macrophages dramatically decreased in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups. The ratio of M2 to M1 macrophages in the PRP + SIS and PRP groups was 3.97 and 2.93 times that of the control group and 4.56 and 3.37 times that of the SIS group, respectively. Conclusion Co-administration of SIS and PRP has a better effect on promoting angiogenesis, re-epithelialization and collagen regeneration in managing acute wound healing than either agent alone.