Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Cat: A Macroscopic Description and Comparison with Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Dog

Objective— To describe the macroscopic features of first and second intention cutaneous wound healing in the cat and compare with the dog. Study Design— Experimental study. Animals— Domestic shorthaired cats (6) and beagle dogs (6). Methods— Square, open cutaneous wounds created on the dorsal aspect...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Veterinary surgery 2004-11, Vol.33 (6), p.579-587
Hauptverfasser: Bohling, Mark W., Henderson, Ralph A., Swaim, Steven F., Kincaid, Steven A., Wright, James C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 587
container_issue 6
container_start_page 579
container_title Veterinary surgery
container_volume 33
creator Bohling, Mark W.
Henderson, Ralph A.
Swaim, Steven F.
Kincaid, Steven A.
Wright, James C.
description Objective— To describe the macroscopic features of first and second intention cutaneous wound healing in the cat and compare with the dog. Study Design— Experimental study. Animals— Domestic shorthaired cats (6) and beagle dogs (6). Methods— Square, open cutaneous wounds created on the dorsal aspect of the thorax were evaluated for 21 days for temporal and spatial development of granulation tissue, wound contraction, epithelialization, and total healing. To evaluate first intention healing, breaking strength of sutured linear cutaneous wounds was measured at 7 days post‐wounding. Laser‐Doppler perfusion imaging was used to measure cutaneous perfusion. Results— First intention healing: sutured wounds in cats were only half as strong as those in dogs at day 7 (0.406 versus 0.818 kg breaking strength). Second intention healing: cats produced significantly less granulation tissue than dogs, with a peripheral, rather than central distribution. Wound epithelialization and total wound healing (total reduction in open wound area from contraction and epithelialization) were greater for dogs than for cats over 21 days. Wound contraction on day 7 was greater for dogs, but not on day 14 or 21. Cutaneous perfusion was initially greater for dogs than for cats, but no differences were detected after day 7. Conclusions— Significant, previously unreported differences in cutaneous wound healing exist between cats and dogs. In general, cutaneous wounds in cats are slower to heal. Cats and dogs also appear to use different mechanisms of second intention healing. In cats wounds close mainly by contraction of the wound edges, whereas in dogs wounds close more from central pull, and epithelialization. Clinical Relevance— Surgeons should view the cat as a unique species, which presents its own special challenges in wound healing, and should take this into account when planning treatment of feline wounds, either by primary closure, or by second intention healing.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04081.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67223347</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67223347</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-2e9027e14e26a60d7dbe73e477ea65b766497561f9cd0c1bb9477a10d0271ff73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkctO3DAYhS1UBMPlFSqri-4SfIs97qISCoVB4lLUAt1ZTuKAp5k4tRMxvD0OGYHUTeuNbfmcT7_PAQBilOK4jpYpzihJZIZ-pQQhliKG5jhdb4HZ28MHMEOY44QyKXfBXghLhJBkjO6AXZzxTCJMZqDPh163xg0B3ruhreDC6Ma2D9C2sH80MNf9F3gML3XpXShdZ0t4YkLpbddb10IdHblbddrbEK9Ptn-E_yCeuIcDsF3rJpjDzb4Pbk-__cwXycX12Xl-fJGUjFKcECMREQYzQ7jmqBJVYQQ1TAijeVYIzpkUGce1LCtU4qKQ8UljVEUXrmtB98Hnidt592cwoVcrG0rTNNN8igtCKGWj8NNfwqUbfBtnUyRmhTM0Z1E0n0RjFMGbWnXerrR_VhipsRa1VGP6akxfjbWo11rUOlo_bvhDsTLVu3HTQxR8nQRPtjHP_w1Wdz9uX48RkEwAG3qzfgNo_zv-kopM3V-dqZvF6fe5vKSK0BcNl6og</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215615084</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Cat: A Macroscopic Description and Comparison with Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Dog</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Bohling, Mark W. ; Henderson, Ralph A. ; Swaim, Steven F. ; Kincaid, Steven A. ; Wright, James C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bohling, Mark W. ; Henderson, Ralph A. ; Swaim, Steven F. ; Kincaid, Steven A. ; Wright, James C.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective— To describe the macroscopic features of first and second intention cutaneous wound healing in the cat and compare with the dog. Study Design— Experimental study. Animals— Domestic shorthaired cats (6) and beagle dogs (6). Methods— Square, open cutaneous wounds created on the dorsal aspect of the thorax were evaluated for 21 days for temporal and spatial development of granulation tissue, wound contraction, epithelialization, and total healing. To evaluate first intention healing, breaking strength of sutured linear cutaneous wounds was measured at 7 days post‐wounding. Laser‐Doppler perfusion imaging was used to measure cutaneous perfusion. Results— First intention healing: sutured wounds in cats were only half as strong as those in dogs at day 7 (0.406 versus 0.818 kg breaking strength). Second intention healing: cats produced significantly less granulation tissue than dogs, with a peripheral, rather than central distribution. Wound epithelialization and total wound healing (total reduction in open wound area from contraction and epithelialization) were greater for dogs than for cats over 21 days. Wound contraction on day 7 was greater for dogs, but not on day 14 or 21. Cutaneous perfusion was initially greater for dogs than for cats, but no differences were detected after day 7. Conclusions— Significant, previously unreported differences in cutaneous wound healing exist between cats and dogs. In general, cutaneous wounds in cats are slower to heal. Cats and dogs also appear to use different mechanisms of second intention healing. In cats wounds close mainly by contraction of the wound edges, whereas in dogs wounds close more from central pull, and epithelialization. Clinical Relevance— Surgeons should view the cat as a unique species, which presents its own special challenges in wound healing, and should take this into account when planning treatment of feline wounds, either by primary closure, or by second intention healing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-3499</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-950X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04081.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15659012</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; canine ; Cats ; Cats - injuries ; Dogs ; Dogs - injuries ; feline ; Female ; first intention ; Injuries ; Medical treatment ; second intention ; skin ; Skin - injuries ; Suture Techniques - veterinary ; Veterinary services ; Wound Healing</subject><ispartof>Veterinary surgery, 2004-11, Vol.33 (6), p.579-587</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2004 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-2e9027e14e26a60d7dbe73e477ea65b766497561f9cd0c1bb9477a10d0271ff73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-2e9027e14e26a60d7dbe73e477ea65b766497561f9cd0c1bb9477a10d0271ff73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2004.04081.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2004.04081.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,1419,27931,27932,45581,45582</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15659012$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bohling, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Ralph A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swaim, Steven F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kincaid, Steven A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, James C.</creatorcontrib><title>Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Cat: A Macroscopic Description and Comparison with Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Dog</title><title>Veterinary surgery</title><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><description>Objective— To describe the macroscopic features of first and second intention cutaneous wound healing in the cat and compare with the dog. Study Design— Experimental study. Animals— Domestic shorthaired cats (6) and beagle dogs (6). Methods— Square, open cutaneous wounds created on the dorsal aspect of the thorax were evaluated for 21 days for temporal and spatial development of granulation tissue, wound contraction, epithelialization, and total healing. To evaluate first intention healing, breaking strength of sutured linear cutaneous wounds was measured at 7 days post‐wounding. Laser‐Doppler perfusion imaging was used to measure cutaneous perfusion. Results— First intention healing: sutured wounds in cats were only half as strong as those in dogs at day 7 (0.406 versus 0.818 kg breaking strength). Second intention healing: cats produced significantly less granulation tissue than dogs, with a peripheral, rather than central distribution. Wound epithelialization and total wound healing (total reduction in open wound area from contraction and epithelialization) were greater for dogs than for cats over 21 days. Wound contraction on day 7 was greater for dogs, but not on day 14 or 21. Cutaneous perfusion was initially greater for dogs than for cats, but no differences were detected after day 7. Conclusions— Significant, previously unreported differences in cutaneous wound healing exist between cats and dogs. In general, cutaneous wounds in cats are slower to heal. Cats and dogs also appear to use different mechanisms of second intention healing. In cats wounds close mainly by contraction of the wound edges, whereas in dogs wounds close more from central pull, and epithelialization. Clinical Relevance— Surgeons should view the cat as a unique species, which presents its own special challenges in wound healing, and should take this into account when planning treatment of feline wounds, either by primary closure, or by second intention healing.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>canine</subject><subject>Cats</subject><subject>Cats - injuries</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Dogs - injuries</subject><subject>feline</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>first intention</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Medical treatment</subject><subject>second intention</subject><subject>skin</subject><subject>Skin - injuries</subject><subject>Suture Techniques - veterinary</subject><subject>Veterinary services</subject><subject>Wound Healing</subject><issn>0161-3499</issn><issn>1532-950X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkctO3DAYhS1UBMPlFSqri-4SfIs97qISCoVB4lLUAt1ZTuKAp5k4tRMxvD0OGYHUTeuNbfmcT7_PAQBilOK4jpYpzihJZIZ-pQQhliKG5jhdb4HZ28MHMEOY44QyKXfBXghLhJBkjO6AXZzxTCJMZqDPh163xg0B3ruhreDC6Ma2D9C2sH80MNf9F3gML3XpXShdZ0t4YkLpbddb10IdHblbddrbEK9Ptn-E_yCeuIcDsF3rJpjDzb4Pbk-__cwXycX12Xl-fJGUjFKcECMREQYzQ7jmqBJVYQQ1TAijeVYIzpkUGce1LCtU4qKQ8UljVEUXrmtB98Hnidt592cwoVcrG0rTNNN8igtCKGWj8NNfwqUbfBtnUyRmhTM0Z1E0n0RjFMGbWnXerrR_VhipsRa1VGP6akxfjbWo11rUOlo_bvhDsTLVu3HTQxR8nQRPtjHP_w1Wdz9uX48RkEwAG3qzfgNo_zv-kopM3V-dqZvF6fe5vKSK0BcNl6og</recordid><startdate>200411</startdate><enddate>200411</enddate><creator>Bohling, Mark W.</creator><creator>Henderson, Ralph A.</creator><creator>Swaim, Steven F.</creator><creator>Kincaid, Steven A.</creator><creator>Wright, James C.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200411</creationdate><title>Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Cat: A Macroscopic Description and Comparison with Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Dog</title><author>Bohling, Mark W. ; Henderson, Ralph A. ; Swaim, Steven F. ; Kincaid, Steven A. ; Wright, James C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-2e9027e14e26a60d7dbe73e477ea65b766497561f9cd0c1bb9477a10d0271ff73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>canine</topic><topic>Cats</topic><topic>Cats - injuries</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Dogs - injuries</topic><topic>feline</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>first intention</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Medical treatment</topic><topic>second intention</topic><topic>skin</topic><topic>Skin - injuries</topic><topic>Suture Techniques - veterinary</topic><topic>Veterinary services</topic><topic>Wound Healing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bohling, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Ralph A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swaim, Steven F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kincaid, Steven A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, James C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bohling, Mark W.</au><au>Henderson, Ralph A.</au><au>Swaim, Steven F.</au><au>Kincaid, Steven A.</au><au>Wright, James C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Cat: A Macroscopic Description and Comparison with Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Dog</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><date>2004-11</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>579</spage><epage>587</epage><pages>579-587</pages><issn>0161-3499</issn><eissn>1532-950X</eissn><abstract>Objective— To describe the macroscopic features of first and second intention cutaneous wound healing in the cat and compare with the dog. Study Design— Experimental study. Animals— Domestic shorthaired cats (6) and beagle dogs (6). Methods— Square, open cutaneous wounds created on the dorsal aspect of the thorax were evaluated for 21 days for temporal and spatial development of granulation tissue, wound contraction, epithelialization, and total healing. To evaluate first intention healing, breaking strength of sutured linear cutaneous wounds was measured at 7 days post‐wounding. Laser‐Doppler perfusion imaging was used to measure cutaneous perfusion. Results— First intention healing: sutured wounds in cats were only half as strong as those in dogs at day 7 (0.406 versus 0.818 kg breaking strength). Second intention healing: cats produced significantly less granulation tissue than dogs, with a peripheral, rather than central distribution. Wound epithelialization and total wound healing (total reduction in open wound area from contraction and epithelialization) were greater for dogs than for cats over 21 days. Wound contraction on day 7 was greater for dogs, but not on day 14 or 21. Cutaneous perfusion was initially greater for dogs than for cats, but no differences were detected after day 7. Conclusions— Significant, previously unreported differences in cutaneous wound healing exist between cats and dogs. In general, cutaneous wounds in cats are slower to heal. Cats and dogs also appear to use different mechanisms of second intention healing. In cats wounds close mainly by contraction of the wound edges, whereas in dogs wounds close more from central pull, and epithelialization. Clinical Relevance— Surgeons should view the cat as a unique species, which presents its own special challenges in wound healing, and should take this into account when planning treatment of feline wounds, either by primary closure, or by second intention healing.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Inc</pub><pmid>15659012</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04081.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0161-3499
ispartof Veterinary surgery, 2004-11, Vol.33 (6), p.579-587
issn 0161-3499
1532-950X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67223347
source Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; MEDLINE
subjects Animals
canine
Cats
Cats - injuries
Dogs
Dogs - injuries
feline
Female
first intention
Injuries
Medical treatment
second intention
skin
Skin - injuries
Suture Techniques - veterinary
Veterinary services
Wound Healing
title Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Cat: A Macroscopic Description and Comparison with Cutaneous Wound Healing in the Dog
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T07%3A21%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cutaneous%20Wound%20Healing%20in%20the%20Cat:%20A%20Macroscopic%20Description%20and%20Comparison%20with%20Cutaneous%20Wound%20Healing%20in%20the%20Dog&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20surgery&rft.au=Bohling,%20Mark%20W.&rft.date=2004-11&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=579&rft.epage=587&rft.pages=579-587&rft.issn=0161-3499&rft.eissn=1532-950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04081.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67223347%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215615084&rft_id=info:pmid/15659012&rfr_iscdi=true