Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Evaluation of Nanofat versus Platelet Rich Plasma in Promoting the Healing Process for Donor Site in Split Thickness Graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Scar of donor site after Split-thickness skin graft (STSG) remains a challenge in reconstructive surgery. Nanofat is composed of small fat particles (less than 0.1 mm in diameter) containing a high concentration of stem cells and growth factors that helps in tissue regeneration. PRP positively impacts skin quality, texture and hyperpigmentation due to the presence of platelet derived growth factors (PDGF), Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), vascular endothelial growth (VEGF), Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF). Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effect of adjuvant nanofat grafting versus PRP injection on STSG donor sites healing (Epidermal thickness, re-epithelization), scar quality by Vancouver score and postoperative complications. Patients and Methods: This comparative self-controlled multi-center clinical trial was carried out in Plastic surgery unit of General Surgery Department at Benha University hospital and Plastic surgery Department of Benha Teaching hospital from February 2024 to September 2025. This study included 50 patients who had raw areas that necessitated skin reconstruction by STSG to evaluate the effect of adding nanofat grafts and platelet rich plasma injection to donor sites of STSG. The donor site was divided into 2 halves.1 half was treated with nanofat and the other half was treated with PRP combined with Vaseline gauze. Results: Nanofat-treated sites demonstrated significantly superior healing characteristics. At one month, nanofat achieved a significantly greater mean epidermal thickness (259.5 ± 12.3 µm vs. 198 ± 38 µm, P < 0.001) and larger re-epithelialization area (85.1 ± 11.5% vs. 78.74 ± 10.2%, P=0.004). At three months, nanofat sites showed better VSS scores, with significantly less firm pliability (0% vs. 36%, P < 0.001) and fewer red (hyperemic) areas (4% vs. 20%, P=0.028) compared to PRP. No hypertrophic scar formation was observed in either the nanofat-treated or PRP-treated donor sites during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Nanofat grafting provides a regenerative advantage over PRP, leading to accelerated and more stable healing, superior pliability, and significantly better scar quality at STSG donor sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".