The application of light in various therapeutic settings known as Photobiomodulation (PBM) is well established. Indications are the improvement of wound healing and tissue regeneration, scarring, and perfusion as well as pain therapy. Tissue perfusion is mandatory for successful wound healing. Nevertheless, there is a lack of mechanistic studies. We investigate the potential effect of PBM from light emitting diodes (LED) at 635 nm, 80 mW/cm2, 24 J/cm2 on angiogenesis in a two-part study: 1.) Investigation of the effect of PBM on the proliferation of endothelial cells and on vasculogenesis in a co-culture model of endothelial cells and stem cells. 2.) Investigation of the influence of PBM at chick egg chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assays with fresh human skin xenografts. In both study phases, we observed a stimulating effect of PBM at 635 nm; in part 1: for proliferation of HUVEC (human umbilical vein endothelial cells) (25833 ± 12859 versus 63002 ± 35760 cells/well, p < 0.05, for cellular network formation (2.1 ± 2.1 versus 4.6 ± 3.5, p < 0.05) and for less cell compactness p = 0.01; in part 2: for the increase of number of vessel junctions per ROI (region of interest) (15.9 ± 2.6 versus 20.8 ± 5.4, p < 0.05). Our results suggest significant promotion of angiogenesis by PBM at 635 nm in vitro and in vivo.

Hypertrophic scars are still a major burden for numerous patients, especially after burns. Many treatment options are available; however, no evidence‐based treatment protocol is available with recommendations mostly emerging from experience or lower quality studies. This review serves to discuss the currently available literature. A systematic review was performed and the databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for suitable publications. Only original articles in English that dealt with the treatment of hypertrophic scars in living humans were analyzed. Further, studies with a level of evidence lower than 1 as defined by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons were excluded. After duplicate exclusion, 1638 studies were screened. A qualitative assessment yielded 163 articles eligible for evidence grading. Finally nine studies were included. Four of them used intralesional injections, four topical therapeutics and one assessed the efficacy of CO2‐laser. Intralesional triamcinolone + fluorouracil injections, and topical pressure and/or silicone therapy revealed significant improvements in terms of scar height, pliability, and pigmentation. This systematic review showed that still few high‐quality studies exist to evaluate therapeutic means and their mechanisms for hypertrophic scars. Among these, most of them assessed the efficacy of intralesional triamcinolone injections with the same treatment protocol. Intralesional injection appears to be the best option for hypertrophic scar treatment. Future studies should focus on a possible optimization of infiltrative therapies, consistent end‐point evaluations, adequate follow‐up periods, and possibly intraindividual treatments.

Background and Objectives: Burn wound healing and management continues to be a major challenge for patients and health care providers resulting in a considerable socio-economic burden. Recent advances in the development of applicable xenografts as an alternative to split-thickness skin grafts have allowed for the development of acellular fish skin. Acellular fish skin acts as a skin substitute, reducing inflammatory responses and advancing proinflammatory cytokines that promote wound healing. Due to these beneficial wound healing properties, acellular fish skin might represent an effective treatment approach in burn wound management. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of the literature, up to March 2022, was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts were screened for the following key terms (variably combined): “fish skin”, “fish skin grafts”, “acellular fish skin”, “Omega3 Wound matrix”, “xenograft”, “burn injury”, “burns”. Results: In total, 14 trials investigating the effects of acellular fish skin in burn wounds or split-thickness donor sites were determined eligible and included in the present review. Existing evidence on the use of acellular fish skin indicates an acceleration of wound healing, reduction in pain and necessary dressing changes as well as treatment-related costs and improved aesthetic and functional outcomes compared to conventional treatment options. Conclusions: Acellular fish skin xenografts may represent an effective, low-cost alternative in treatment of superficial- and partial-thickness burns. However, results mainly originate from preclinical and small cohort studies. Future larger cohort studies are warranted to elucidate the full potential of this promising approach.