Advances in non-invasive biosensing measures to monitor wound healing progression

Abstract

Impaired wound healing is a significant financial and medical burden. The synthesis and deposition of extracellular matrix (ECM) in a new wound is a dynamic process that is constantly changing and adapting to the biochemical and biomechanical signaling from the extracellular microenvironments of the wound. This drives either a regenerative or fibrotic and scar-forming healing outcome. Disruptions in ECM deposition, structure, and composition lead to impaired healing in diseased states, such as in diabetes. Valid measures of the principal determinants of successful ECM deposition and wound healing include lack of bacterial contamination, good tissue perfusion, and reduced mechanical injury and strain. These measures are used by wound-care providers to intervene upon the healing wound to steer healing toward a more functional phenotype with improved structural integrity and healing outcomes and to prevent adverse wound developments. In this review, we discuss bioengineering advances in 1) non-invasive detection of biologic and physiologic factors of the healing wound, 2) visualizing and modeling the ECM, and 3) computational tools that efficiently evaluate the complex data acquired from the wounds based on basic science, preclinical, translational and clinical studies, that would allow us to prognosticate healing outcomes and intervene effectively. We focus on bioelectronics and biologic interfaces of the sensors and actuators for real time biosensing and actuation of the tissues. We also discuss high-resolution, advanced imaging techniques, which go beyond traditional confocal and fluorescence microscopy to visualize microscopic details of the composition of the wound matrix, linearity of collagen, and live tracking of components within the wound microenvironment. Computational modeling of the wound matrix, including partial differential equation datasets as well as machine learning models that can serve as powerful tools for physicians to guide their decision-making process are discussed.

GEO data mining identifies potential immune-related genes in hypertrophic scar and verities in a rabbit model

“…HTS is a type of visible scar caused by abnormal wound healing secondary to dermal injury, resulting in pain, pruritus, reduced aesthetic appeal, and functional impairment [ 15 ]. Although it may be triggered by any skin injury, HTS is estimated to occur in 40%–70% of patients undergoing surgery, 90% of burn patients and 14% of patients with acne.…”

Smart Wound Monitoring and Healing Assessment System With Deep Learning Methods - A Systematic Review

“…The wound ecosystem can be described as what is outside around the wound region and the underlying surroundings beneath the area of injury Peterson et al (2021). The skin wound ecosystem is classified into two primary categories: the exterior environment and the inside ecology Short et al (2022). The external setting refers to the surroundings beyond the wound region, whereas the internal setting refers to the surroundings underneath the wound area.…”

Lab‐on‐a‐Fiber Wearable Multi‐Sensor for Monitoring Wound Healing

“…The alteration of the healing process leads to the chronicization of the wound with dramatic consequences for the patient (i.e., prolonged pain and discomfort) and increased costs for the health care system. [1] In the United States alone, over 8 million patients have chronic, non-healing wounds, the management of which costs between $28 and $96 million annually. [2] DOI: 10.1002/adhm.…”

“…The alteration of the healing process leads to the chronicization of the wound with dramatic consequences for the patient (i.e., prolonged pain and discomfort) and increased costs for the health care system. [ 1 ] In the United States alone, over 8 million patients have chronic, non‐healing wounds, the management of which costs between $28 and $96 million annually. [ 2 ] Moreover, non‐healing wounds are not only expensive to manage but can be life‐threatening with a mortality rate of 30.5%, which is close to that reported for cancer (31%).…”