Ukr.Biochem.J. 2026; Volume 98, Issue 4, Jul-Aug, pp. 108-126

doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/ubj98.04.108

Acellular dermal matrix for chronic wound treatment: dry or wet?

A. I. Dovhaliuk1, O. I. Kulianda2, N. V. Ohinska1,
O. S. Redko1, O. O. Kulianda3, A. O. Kovalchuk4,
V. V. Kulbitska1, S. B. Kramar1, Z. M. Nebesna1,
M. M. Korda2, O. O. Shevchuk5*

1Department of Histology and Embryology, Ivan Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine;
2Department of Medical Biochemistry, Ivan Horbachevsky Ternopil
National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine;
3Department of Pathophysiology, Ivan Horbachevsky Ternopil
National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine;
4Central Research Laboratory, Ivan Horbachevsky Ternopil
National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine;
5Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology,
Ivan Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine;
*e-mail: shevchukoo@tdmu.edu.ua

Received: 27 May 2026; Revised: 19 June 2026;
Accepted: 27 July 2026; Available on-line: 04 August 2026

Background. Chronic wounds pose a serious clinical and economic burden, and their effective treatment requires the development of new biomaterials that promote tissue regeneration. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) represent a promising regenerative strategy; however, their biological properties largely depend on the manu­facturing protocol. Objective. To compare the biocompatibility and cytotoxicity of two porcine acellular dermal matrix variants, dry (d-ADM) and wet (w-ADM), and to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the biocompatible matrix in an experimental porcine model of chronic full-thickness wounds. Methods. Biocompatibility was assessed in vitro using human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hU-MSCs) by evaluating cell morphology, viability, proliferation, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release. The therapeutic efficacy of the selected ADM was investigated in a porcine chronic full-thickness excisional wound model and compared with non-adhesive dressings and Promogran Prisma. Wound healing was evaluated after 28 days using histological, immunohistochemical (TNF-α, TGF-β, Ki-67), and morphometric analyses. Results. The wet ADM preserved hU-MSC morphology, viability, and proliferative capacity, whereas the dry ADM induced marked cytotoxicity, increased LDH release, and extensive cell death. In vivo, treatment with w-ADM significantly accelerated wound healing compared with both control dressings, resulting in complete and stable re-epithelialization, minimal inflammatory infiltration, organized collagen remodeling, and improved tissue architecture. Immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated significantly lower expression of TNF-α, TGF-β, and Ki-67, indicating resolution of inflammation and transition toward tissue remodeling and regene­rative stabilization. Conclusions. Wet acellular dermal matrix demonstrated excellent biocompatibility and superior regenerative performance, whereas the dry matrix exhibited unacceptable cytotoxicity. Wet ADM represents a promising scaffold for regenerative treatment of chronic wounds and warrants further investigation as a clinically applicable biomaterial, including in combination with mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies.

Keywords: , , , , , ,


References:

  1. Jain K, Avsar P, Patton D, Moore Z, Murray B. What specific challenges do patients with chronic wounds encounter when attending medical appointments related to wound care? A systematic review. J Tissue Viability. 2025;34(2):100865. PubMed, CrossRef
  2. McCosker L, Tulleners R, Cheng Q, Rohmer S, Pacella T, Graves N, Pacella R. Chronic wounds in Australia: A systematic review of key epidemiological and clinical parameters. Int Wound J. 2019;16(1):84-95. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  3. Bowers S, Franco E. Chronic Wounds: Evaluation and Management. Am Fam Physician. 2020;101(3):159-166. PubMed
  4. Atkin L, Bućko Z, Conde Montero E, Cutting K, Moffatt C, Probst A, Romanelli M, Schultz GS, Tettelbach W. Implementing TIMERS: the race against hard-to-heal wounds. J Wound Care. 2019;23(Sup3a):S1-S50. PubMed, CrossRef
  5. Fife C, LeBoutillier B, Taylor C, Marcinek BT. Real-World Use and Outcomes of Hard-To-Heal Wounds Managed With Porcine Placental Extracellular Matrix. Cureus. 2024;16(12):e76262.
    PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  6. Eriksson E, Liu PY, Schultz GS, Martins-Green MM, Tanaka R, Weir D, Gould LJ, Armstrong DG, Gibbons GW, Wolcott R, Olutoye OO, Kirsner RS, Gurtner GC. Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus. Wound Repair Regen. 2022;30(2):156-171. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  7. Sen CK. Human Wound and Its Burden: Updated 2020 Compendium of Estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2021;10(5):281-292. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  8. Greenstein ES, Falone W, Patterson T, Cesario K, Mitchell L, Martel T, Rivera J, Vooijs M, Norton S. Treating chronic wounds in an acute care setting: the forgotten diagnosis. Wound Manag Prev. 2024;70(1):22085. PubMed, CrossRef
  9. Martinengo L, Olsson M, Bajpai R, Soljak M, Upton Z, Schmidtchen A, Car J, Järbrink K. Prevalence of chronic wounds in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;29:8-15. PubMed, CrossRef
  10. Olsson M, Järbrink K, Divakar U, Bajpai R, Upton Z, Schmidtchen A, Car J. The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds: A systematic review. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(1):114-125. PubMed, CrossRef
  11. Lim HW, Collins SAB, Resneck JS Jr, Bolognia JL, Hodge JA, Rohrer TA, Van Beek MJ, Margolis DJ, Sober AJ, Weinstock MA, Nerenz DR, Smith Begolka W, Moyano JV. The burden of skin disease in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(5):958-972.e2. PubMed, CrossRef
  12. Sorg H, Sorg CGG. Skin Wound Healing: Of Players, Patterns, and Processes. Eur Surg Res. 2023;64(2):141-157. PubMed, CrossRef
  13. Pang C, Ibrahim A, Bulstrode NW, Ferretti P. An overview of the therapeutic potential of regenerative medicine in cutaneous wound healing. Int Wound J. 2017;14(3):450-459. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  14. Kolimi P, Narala S, Nyavanandi D, Youssef AAA, Dudhipala N. Innovative Treatment Strategies to Accelerate Wound Healing: Trajectory and Recent Advancements. Cells. 2022;11(15):2439. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  15. Las Heras K, Igartua M, Santos-Vizcaino E, Hernandez RM. Chronic wounds: Current status, available strategies and emerging therapeutic solutions. J Control Release. 2020;328:532-550. PubMed, CrossRef
  16. Marfia G, Navone SE, Di Vito C, Ughi N, Tabano S, Miozzo M, Tremolada C, Bolla G, Crotti C, Ingegnoli F, Rampini P, Riboni L, Gualtierotti R, Campanella R. Mesenchymal stem cells: potential for therapy and treatment of chronic non-healing skin wounds. Organogenesis. 2015;11(4):183-206. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  17. Dai C, Shih S, Khachemoune A. Skin substitutes for acute and chronic wound healing: an updated review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2020;31(6):639-648. PubMed, CrossRef
  18. Kulyanda IS, Fedoniuk LY, Dovgalyuk AI, Kramar SB, Kulyanda OO. Production of Acellular Dermal Matrix of Pig’s Skin: Morphological Analysis. Achiev Clin Exp Med. 2020;(4):107-113. (In Ukrainian). CrossRef
  19. Ding Z, Dan N, Chen Y. Study of a Hydrophilic Healing-Promoting Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix. Processes. 2022;10(5):916. CrossRef
  20. Browne S, Petit N, Quondamatteo F. Functionalised biomaterials as synthetic extracellular matrices to promote vascularisation and healing of diabetic wounds. Cell Tissue Res. 2024;395(2):133-145. PubMed, CrossRef
  21. Hosty L, Heatherington T, Quondamatteo F, Browne S. Extracellular matrix-inspired biomaterials for wound healing. Mol Biol Rep. 2024;51(1):830. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  22. Urciuolo F, Casale C, Imparato G, Netti PA. Bioengineered Skin Substitutes: the Role of Extracellular Matrix and Vascularization in the Healing of Deep Wounds. J Clin Med. 2019;8(12):2083. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  23. Solarte David VA, Güiza-Argüello VR, Arango-Rodríguez ML, Sossa CL, Becerra-Bayona SM. Decellularized Tissues for Wound Healing: Towards Closing the Gap Between Scaffold Design and Effective Extracellular Matrix Remodeling. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:821852. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  24. Campitiello F, Mancone M, Cammarota M, D’Agostino A, Ricci G, Stellavato A, Della Corte A, Pirozzi AVA, Scialla G, Schiraldi C, Canonico S. Acellular Dermal Matrix Used in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Clinical Outcomes Supported by Biochemical and Histological Analyses. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(13):7085. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  25. Chen Y, Liu X, Zheng X, Huang X, Dan W, Li Z, Dan N, Wang Y. Advances on the modification and biomedical applications of acellular dermal matrices. J Leather Sci Eng. 2022;4(1):1-19. CrossRef
  26. Hsieh CM, Wang W, Chen YH, Wei PS, Liu YH, Sheu MT, Ho HO. A Novel Composite Hydrogel Composed of Formic Acid-Decellularized Pepsin-Soluble Extracellular Matrix Hydrogel and Sacchachitin Hydrogel as Wound Dressing to Synergistically Accelerate Diabetic Wound Healing. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(6):538. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  27. Tognetti L, Pianigiani E, Ierardi F, Lorenzini G, Casella D, Liso FG, De Pascalis A, Cinotti E, Rubegni P. The use of human acellular dermal matrices in advanced wound healing and surgical procedures: State of the art. Dermatol Ther. 2021;34(4):e14987. PubMed, CrossRef
  28. Brown M, Li J, Moraes C, Tabrizian M, Li-Jessen NYK. Decellularized extracellular matrix: New promising and challenging biomaterials for regenerative medicine. Biomaterials. 2022;289:121786. PubMed, CrossRef
  29. Byk PL, Kryvorchuk IH, Leshchyshyn IM, Martyniuk NS, Orlov DY. Epidemiology and Antibiotic Resistance of Combat Wound Infection in Surgical Patients. Ukr J Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;32(2):129-140. (In Ukrainian). CrossRef
  30. Sinyuk M, Polishchuk V, Yuschak P, Burachok I. Management of war-related facial wounds in Ukraine: the Lviv military hospital experience. BMJ Mil Health. 2025;171(1):12-15. PubMed, CrossRef
  31. Alegre MG, Lopez EM, Blasco M, Benavente VY, Roldan MDMR. Overview of pain in Ukrainian war injured. Injury. 2025;56(2):112046. PubMed, CrossRef
  32. Seavey JG, Masters ZA, Balazs GC, Tintle SM, Sabino J, Fleming ME, Valerio IL. Use of a bioartificial dermal regeneration template for skin restoration in combat casualty injuries. Regen Med. 2016;11(1):81-90. PubMed, CrossRef
  33. Fedoniuk LYa, Kulyanda IS, Dovgalyuk AI, Lomakina YuV, Kramar SB, Kulianda OO, Valko OO. Morphological characteristics of acellular dermal matrix manufacturing. Wiad Lek. 2021;74(3 p.I):418-422. CrossRef
  34. Guarnieri R, Reda R, Di Nardo D, Miccoli G, Zanza A, Testarelli L. In Vitro Direct and Indirect Cytotoxicity Comparative Analysis of One Pre-Hydrated versus One Dried Acellular Porcine Dermal Matrix. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(5):1937. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  35. Kumar P, Nagarajan A, Uchil PD. Analysis of Cell Viability by the Lactate Dehydrogenase Assay. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2018;2018(6):pdb.prot095497. PubMed, CrossRef
  36. Masson-Meyers DS, Andrade TAM, Caetano GF, Guimaraes FR, Leite MN, Leite SN, Frade MAC. Experimental models and methods for cutaneous wound healing assessment. Int J Exp Pathol. 2020;101(1-2):21-37. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  37. Wong VW, Sorkin M, Glotzbach JP, Longaker MT, Gurtner GC. Surgical approaches to create murine models of human wound healing. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011:2011:969618. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  38. Kulianda O. Experimental modelling of full-thickness skin wounds in pigs. Bull Med Biol Res. 2025;7(1):43-50. CrossRef
  39. Pawlak J, Trzcionka A, Mertas A, Dziedzic A, Hildebrandt T, Tanasiewicz M. The Cytotoxicity Assessment of Novel Formulation Developed to Reduce Dentin Hypersensitivity Utilizing Dehydrogenase Assay. Coatings. 2021;11(2):217. CrossRef
  40. Shin JW, Kwon SH, Choi JY, Na JI, Huh CH, Choi HR, Park KC. Molecular Mechanisms of Dermal Aging and Antiaging Approaches. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(9):2126. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  41. Wang B, Qinglai T, Yang Q, Li M, Zeng S, Yang X, Xiao Z, Tong X, Lei L, Li S. Functional acellular matrix for tissue repair. Mater Today Bio. 2022;18:100530. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  42. Heath DE. A Review of Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Biomaterials for Regenerative Engineering Applications. Regen Eng Transl Med. 2019;5(2):155-166. CrossRef
  43. Hoshiba T. Decellularized Extracellular Matrix for Cancer Research. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(8):1311. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef
  44. Primasari M, Saputro ID, Hariani L, Velusamy GPB. Developing Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix by Using Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate and Biomechanical Property Testing. Biomol Heal Sci J. 2024;7(1):23-28. CrossRef
  45. Cheon JH, Yoon ES, Kim JW, Park SH, Lee BI. A comparative study between sterile freeze-dried and sterile pre-hydrated acellular dermal matrix in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg. 2019;46(3):204-213. PubMed, PubMedCentral, CrossRef

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.