Display options
Cite
Willems MC, Hendriks T, Lomme RM, et al. The Effect of Mycophenolate Mofetil on Early Wound Healing in a Rodent Model. Transplant Direct. 2016;2(6):e80doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000591.
Willems, M. C., Hendriks, T., Lomme, R. M., de Man, B. M., & van der Vliet, J. A. (2016). The Effect of Mycophenolate Mofetil on Early Wound Healing in a Rodent Model. Transplantation direct, 2(6), e80. https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000000591
Willems, Martine Cm, et al. "The Effect of Mycophenolate Mofetil on Early Wound Healing in a Rodent Model." Transplantation direct vol. 2,6 (2016): e80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000000591
Willems MC, Hendriks T, Lomme RM, de Man BM, van der Vliet JA. The Effect of Mycophenolate Mofetil on Early Wound Healing in a Rodent Model. Transplant Direct. 2016 May 20;2(6):e80. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000591. eCollection 2016 Jun. PMID: 27500270; PMCID: PMC4946522.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Transplant Direct. 2016 May 20;2(6):e80. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000591. eCollection 2016 Jun.

The Effect of Mycophenolate Mofetil on Early Wound Healing in a Rodent Model.

Transplantation direct

Martine Cm Willems, Thijs Hendriks, Roger Mlm Lomme, Ben M de Man, J Adam van der Vliet

Affiliations

  1. Division of Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

PMID: 27500270 PMCID: PMC4946522 DOI: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000591

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressant agents are inevitable for solid organ recipients, but may have a negative effect on wound healing that is difficult to measure because of clinical use of a polydrug regime. The evidence on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is scarce and contradictory. This study aims to investigate the effect of MMF administration on wound healing.

METHODS: Ninety-six male Wistar rats divided into 4 groups underwent anastomotic construction in ileum and colon at day 0. Three groups received daily oral doses of 20 or 40 mg/kg MMF or saline (control group) from day 0 until the end of the experiment. Half of each group was analyzed after 3 days and half after 7 days. Another group started the medication 3 days after the laparotomy and was analyzed after 7 days, half of this group received 20 mg/kg and half 40 mg/kg MMF. Wound strength in anastomoses and in the abdominal wall was measured using bursting pressure, breaking strength, and histology. Trough levels were measured.

RESULTS: Significant differences in wound strength were seen in ileum tissue after 3 days, which surprisingly showed a stronger anastomosis in the experimental groups. Bursting pressure as well as breaking strength was higher in the low-dose and high-dose MMF group compared with the control group. A negative effect was measured in abdominal wall tissue for the highest-dose group, which disappeared when the medication was delayed for 3 days. Histology showed poorer bridging of the submucosal layer and more polymorphonuclear cell infiltration in the ileum specimens of the control group compared with the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS: As a single agent in a preclinical wound healing model in the rat, MMF has no negative effect on healing of bowel anastomoses but might have a negative effect on the healing of abdominal wall.

References

  1. Drug Saf. 2001;24(9):645-63 - PubMed
  2. JAMA. 2011 Nov 2;306(17):1891-901 - PubMed
  3. Br J Surg. 2008 Jun;95(6):793-8 - PubMed
  4. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2010;33(1):52-9 - PubMed
  5. Am J Transplant. 2010 Aug;10(8):1889-96 - PubMed
  6. Transplantation. 2003 Dec 27;76(12 ):1729-34 - PubMed
  7. Am J Transplant. 2006 May;6(5 Pt 1):986-92 - PubMed
  8. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Jul;66(1 Suppl 1):Svii, S1-305 - PubMed
  9. Am J Transplant. 2003 Sep;3(9):1128-34 - PubMed
  10. J Vasc Surg. 2014 Mar;59(3):594-8 - PubMed
  11. Transpl Int. 2011 Dec;24(12):1216-30 - PubMed
  12. J Endod. 2010 Jan;36(1):95-9 - PubMed
  13. Transplantation. 2001 May 27;71(10 ):1429-35 - PubMed
  14. Wound Repair Regen. 2011 Nov;19(6):680-6 - PubMed
  15. Transpl Immunol. 2002 May;9(2-4):187-95 - PubMed
  16. Prog Transplant. 2015 Jun;25(2):182-8 - PubMed
  17. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002 May;240(5):408-14 - PubMed
  18. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(5 Pt 2):1153-69 - PubMed
  19. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002 Jan;13(1):277-87 - PubMed
  20. Transplantation. 2011 Sep 15;92 (5):594-600 - PubMed
  21. Microsurgery. 2005;25(4):353-9 - PubMed
  22. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007 May;321(2):583-9 - PubMed
  23. Br J Cancer. 1995 Aug;72(2):456-60 - PubMed
  24. Transplantation. 2012 Sep 27;94(6):547-61 - PubMed
  25. Int J Urol. 1997 May;4(3):279-84 - PubMed
  26. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Mar;44(3):423-31 - PubMed

Publication Types