Scarless Healing

6,763 posts in this topic

I bet thats why they wont relase it because why make something that fixes scars for cheap when people will be crazy money to fix them anyway with what ever improvements they get

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet thats why they wont relase it because why make something that fixes scars for cheap when people will be crazy money to fix them anyway with what ever improvements they get

The company that is developing the hydrogel has no reason to care that other companies that are selling ineffective scar treatments will see their sales suffer. That's just competition.

Edited by ser25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to catch up, what technology or product are all of you guys referring to? That 'needs to be released'


If you have pitted scarring look into Subcision-Suction as well as microneeding. Check out my success


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to catch up, what technology or product are all of you guys referring to? That 'needs to be released'

Dextran Hydrogel, intended for complete skin regeneration and prevention of scarring, and developed in research at John Hopkins, now undergoing clinical trials in animals with human trials to start in 2016. A company has formed to bring it forward, called Gemstone Biotherapeutics.

Edited by ser25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean the skin will be flush like it was before it was injuyed, if that happens i would be a able to be a billionaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds cool and expensive and fuck, Lmao.



How would you use it on acne scars? Any explanation? Genuine before and afters?

Edited by Robertitoo

If you have pitted scarring look into Subcision-Suction as well as microneeding. Check out my success


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds cool and expensive and fuck, Lmao.

How would you use it on acne scars? Any explanation? Genuine before and afters?

For preexisting scars you will likely have to remove the scar tissue to create a fresh wound before you apply the hydrogel. I think there was some speculation above that this perhaps wouldn't be needed for acne scars but somebody disagreed. See the recent posts in this thread.

I don't think it will be very expensive at all because it uses only cheap ingredients.

There are no before and after pictures available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably wouldn't be expensive for small isolated areas, but if you need large areas treated it would probably get expensive fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Golfpanther and everyone, i may have an opinion to reply Bozo as stated in my second last post, but bozo there stated that atrophic scars are different than hyperthropic and keloid scars...

We all should reconsider about this.. even if hydrogel works, our acne atrophic scar may not get the same result im afraid

What do you guys think?

It's something to think about but immaterial to how the dextran hydrogel would function and be used (at least based on the trials with mice, which we're all familiar with).

The only way the dextran hydrogel works is to create a wound bed through excision or dissolving the scar tissue. At that point, the type of scar that it was (since it has now been removed from the body) is irrelevant. The dextran hydrogel would then be placed on the new wound bed that had been created and allowed to do its work.

Hopefully, it would then interfere with the normal scarring pathway for human healing and lead to a path of regeneration. It's not used as an injectable into already existing scars; it needs a wound bed to function properly. Just look at the original research paper; the investigators didn't scar the mouse, wait for scar tissue to form and then inject the hydrogel into the scar. They burned the mouse, removed the damaged tissue and then place the dextran hydrogel over the wound bed. We can assume the same methodology would be applied to humans if its found to be effective in our species.

Golfpanther, I think you slightly misunderstood my theory, and perhaps are not aware of the differences between different types of scarring. While I appreciate your speculation, arguing that it cannot be used as an injection because it can't does not seem particularly reasonable. Granted, my theory is just a theory, so let me again clarify why I think that DHG could be used as an injection.

Firstly, understand that the fundamental difference between a hypertrophic scar and an atrophic scar is that hypertrophic scars are the result of an over expression of collagen in response to injury, while atrophic scars are the result of an under expression of collagen due to internal damage of the ECM, and incomplete healing. Therefore, your statement about DHG only working after the scar tissue is excised or dissolved, while true in hypertrophic scarring, is not true to the type of scarring that we are talking about. The reason for this is that atrophic scars do not possess any actual scar tissue, and so there is nothing there to dissolve. And consider, just because the researchers applied DHG a certain way in the original research paper, does not mean that that particular method is the only one that is effective. Many different treatments and medicines have multiple ways that they treat an issue, and multiple ways that they can be used. The only reason, to the best of common knowledge, that DHG is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue is the same reason why any treatment is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue: the over expression of dense collagen fibers prevents regenerative cells from penetrating into the tissue. This is why I theorize that DHG, when injected into atrophic scarring, which possesses no over expression of dense collagen fibers, could be effective in treating the "scar."

Edited by Bozo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Golfpanther and everyone, i may have an opinion to reply Bozo as stated in my second last post, but bozo there stated that atrophic scars are different than hyperthropic and keloid scars...

We all should reconsider about this.. even if hydrogel works, our acne atrophic scar may not get the same result im afraid

What do you guys think?

It's something to think about but immaterial to how the dextran hydrogel would function and be used (at least based on the trials with mice, which we're all familiar with).

The only way the dextran hydrogel works is to create a wound bed through excision or dissolving the scar tissue. At that point, the type of scar that it was (since it has now been removed from the body) is irrelevant. The dextran hydrogel would then be placed on the new wound bed that had been created and allowed to do its work.

Hopefully, it would then interfere with the normal scarring pathway for human healing and lead to a path of regeneration. It's not used as an injectable into already existing scars; it needs a wound bed to function properly. Just look at the original research paper; the investigators didn't scar the mouse, wait for scar tissue to form and then inject the hydrogel into the scar. They burned the mouse, removed the damaged tissue and then place the dextran hydrogel over the wound bed. We can assume the same methodology would be applied to humans if its found to be effective in our species.

Golfpanther, I think you slightly misunderstood my theory, and perhaps are not aware of the differences between different types of scarring. While I appreciate your speculation, arguing that it cannot be used as an injection because it can't does not seem particularly reasonable. Granted, my theory is just a theory, so let me again clarify why I think that DHG could be used as an injection.

Firstly, understand that the fundamental difference between a hypertrophic scar and an atrophic scar is that hypertrophic scars are the result of an over expression of collagen in response to injury, while atrophic scars are the result of an under expression of collagen due to internal damage of the ECM, and incomplete healing. Therefore, your statement about DHG only working after the scar tissue is excised or dissolved, while true in hypertrophic scarring, is not true to the type of scarring that we are talking about. The reason for this is that atrophic scars do not possess any actual scar tissue, and so there is nothing there to dissolve. And consider, just because the researchers applied DHG a certain way in the original research paper, does not mean that that particular method is the only one that is effective. Many different treatments and medicines have multiple ways that they treat an issue, and multiple ways that they can be used. The only reason, to the best of common knowledge, that DHG is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue is the same reason why any treatment is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue: the over expression of dense collagen fibers prevents regenerative cells from penetrating into the tissue. This is why I theorize that DHG, when injected into atrophic scarring, which possesses no over expression of dense collagen fibers, could be effective in treating the "scar."

I appreciate all the factual information you are presenting and think it's helpful to talk about these things. However, I've talked to Guoming Sun (one of the author's of the original dextran hydrogel paper) and he assured me that you need a wound bed for DHG to work.

It's designed to take the normal healing response (scarring) and interfere in such a way that guides it more toward regeneration. Without the healing process being initiated the growth factors, fibroblasts, neutrophils and everything else won't be recruited to the site.

If you were to inject dextran hydrogel into an already formed scar, nothing would happen; or at least not a reversal of the scar tissue into regeneration. The reason is that since it's a wound scaffold it merely interacts with the natural healing mechanisms of the body. It doesn't send signals to the body to change the composition of scarred skin (i.e stop producing too much collagen or produce more depending on the wound type).

There is other research into ways to reverse already scarred tissue into perfect skin without excision, but the dextran hydrogel is not in that camp (this is one of the reasons it can be considered a device because as a scaffold it's not require a chemical action on its behalf—you would almost certainly need a catalyst coming from the treatment itself with an injectable as you described). The lack of active component means it can get to market to us sooner because you don't have to make sure the active component isn't also doing something terrible to your patients outside of what's being tested like say, forming a tumor, which is why anything with stem cells will take a long time.

Again, all of this is great information but the dextran hydrogel needs a wound bed to function as intended (at least for now and as far as I can tell it will remain that way). It requires excision or some other process to remove the scar completely in order to create said wound bed to allow the dextran hydrogel to guide the healing process toward regeneration. Trust me, I wish excision, debridement or nasty peptides that dissolve scars wouldn't be necessary for me to get regenerated skin. But for this method at least, that's what we have.

Edit:

One last thing, a while ago now I reached out to Erkki Ruoslahti (the leader of researcher into CAR-decorin) and he said pretty much what I said about his research:

"We make CAR-decorin in cultured cells. We have not tested CAR-decorin in old scars, mostly because there is no reason to expect that it would work. If the scar is first surgically removed, decorin should prevent the formation of a new scar, but we have no data on that." - Erkki Ruoslahti

The key part there is "there is no reason to expect that it would work" in regards to using it on an old scar without excision. Again, most of the research into the idea of complete regeneration is built on the need for a wound bed.

Edited by golfpanther
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is injectable..

Atrophic scar equals missing flesh

Just inject something like dextran hydrogel and be done with it

Why do we need to excise something if its already sunken?

Just my opinion btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is injectable..

Atrophic scar equals missing flesh

Just inject something like dextran hydrogel and be done with it

Why do we need to excise something if its already sunken?

Just my opinion btw

Your opinion doesn't matter in this case because the literature is out there and it simply doesn't work the way you describe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But bozo as far as i know, even atrophic scar is a scar that blocking a regeneration. Thats the only logical explanation

If atrophic scar is the result of under expression of collagen or it is a lack of scar, then regeneration could occur at the first place..

Please someone with any knowledge explain here if i am wrong.. i need another opinion......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atrophic scars, Part of the skin is gone and the under expression of collagen can not fill in the gap. In any scar (Atrophic, Hypertrophic, Normotrophic and keloids) part of the skin is lost and when the damage is deep enough the body can not regenerate new skin, In atrophic scar there is and under expression of collagen not the complete lack of it. This collagen needs to be removed by excision, deep ablative lasers, deep dermabrasion etc.

If you remove the scar the healing process starts again and you get a new scar because remember the damage is deep and the body can not regenerate new skin, if you place the hydrogel on the wound bed during the new healing process the body recruits new skin cells instead of scar tissue because the hydrogel is a 3D scaffoldind and the skin cells can grow and proliferate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are most you guys dealing with Severe scarring? Just curious


If you have pitted scarring look into Subcision-Suction as well as microneeding. Check out my success


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YEAH and all i want is to get normal skin and not worry about it like other people

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much misinformation on this page . . .

I would implore everyone on this forum, as well as guests to this forum to only take heed of posts that actually utilize verified scientific information, sources, and common sense. On this page, golfpanther is about the only one that is on the right track. However, golfpanther, allow me to pose my counterargument.

Golfpanther and everyone, i may have an opinion to reply Bozo as stated in my second last post, but bozo there stated that atrophic scars are different than hyperthropic and keloid scars...

We all should reconsider about this.. even if hydrogel works, our acne atrophic scar may not get the same result im afraid

What do you guys think?

It's something to think about but immaterial to how the dextran hydrogel would function and be used (at least based on the trials with mice, which we're all familiar with).

The only way the dextran hydrogel works is to create a wound bed through excision or dissolving the scar tissue. At that point, the type of scar that it was (since it has now been removed from the body) is irrelevant. The dextran hydrogel would then be placed on the new wound bed that had been created and allowed to do its work.

Hopefully, it would then interfere with the normal scarring pathway for human healing and lead to a path of regeneration. It's not used as an injectable into already existing scars; it needs a wound bed to function properly. Just look at the original research paper; the investigators didn't scar the mouse, wait for scar tissue to form and then inject the hydrogel into the scar. They burned the mouse, removed the damaged tissue and then place the dextran hydrogel over the wound bed. We can assume the same methodology would be applied to humans if its found to be effective in our species.

Golfpanther, I think you slightly misunderstood my theory, and perhaps are not aware of the differences between different types of scarring. While I appreciate your speculation, arguing that it cannot be used as an injection because it can't does not seem particularly reasonable. Granted, my theory is just a theory, so let me again clarify why I think that DHG could be used as an injection.

Firstly, understand that the fundamental difference between a hypertrophic scar and an atrophic scar is that hypertrophic scars are the result of an over expression of collagen in response to injury, while atrophic scars are the result of an under expression of collagen due to internal damage of the ECM, and incomplete healing. Therefore, your statement about DHG only working after the scar tissue is excised or dissolved, while true in hypertrophic scarring, is not true to the type of scarring that we are talking about. The reason for this is that atrophic scars do not possess any actual scar tissue, and so there is nothing there to dissolve. And consider, just because the researchers applied DHG a certain way in the original research paper, does not mean that that particular method is the only one that is effective. Many different treatments and medicines have multiple ways that they treat an issue, and multiple ways that they can be used. The only reason, to the best of common knowledge, that DHG is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue is the same reason why any treatment is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue: the over expression of dense collagen fibers prevents regenerative cells from penetrating into the tissue. This is why I theorize that DHG, when injected into atrophic scarring, which possesses no over expression of dense collagen fibers, could be effective in treating the "scar."

I appreciate all the factual information you are presenting and think it's helpful to talk about these things. However, I've talked to Guoming Sun (one of the author's of the original dextran hydrogel paper) and he assured me that you need a wound bed for DHG to work.

It's designed to take the normal healing response (scarring) and interfere in such a way that guides it more toward regeneration. Without the healing process being initiated the growth factors, fibroblasts, neutrophils and everything else won't be recruited to the site.

If you were to inject dextran hydrogel into an already formed scar, nothing would happen; or at least not a reversal of the scar tissue into regeneration. The reason is that since it's a wound scaffold it merely interacts with the natural healing mechanisms of the body. It doesn't send signals to the body to change the composition of scarred skin (i.e stop producing too much collagen or produce more depending on the wound type).

There is other research into ways to reverse already scarred tissue into perfect skin without excision, but the dextran hydrogel is not in that camp (this is one of the reasons it can be considered a device because as a scaffold it's not require a chemical action on its behalf—you would almost certainly need a catalyst coming from the treatment itself with an injectable as you described). The lack of active component means it can get to market to us sooner because you don't have to make sure the active component isn't also doing something terrible to your patients outside of what's being tested like say, forming a tumor, which is why anything with stem cells will take a long time.

Again, all of this is great information but the dextran hydrogel needs a wound bed to function as intended (at least for now and as far as I can tell it will remain that way). It requires excision or some other process to remove the scar completely in order to create said wound bed to allow the dextran hydrogel to guide the healing process toward regeneration. Trust me, I wish excision, debridement or nasty peptides that dissolve scars wouldn't be necessary for me to get regenerated skin. But for this method at least, that's what we have.

Edit:

One last thing, a while ago now I reached out to Erkki Ruoslahti (the leader of researcher into CAR-decorin) and he said pretty much what I said about his research:

"We make CAR-decorin in cultured cells. We have not tested CAR-decorin in old scars, mostly because there is no reason to expect that it would work. If the scar is first surgically removed, decorin should prevent the formation of a new scar, but we have no data on that." - Erkki Ruoslahti

The key part there is "there is no reason to expect that it would work" in regards to using it on an old scar without excision. Again, most of the research into the idea of complete regeneration is built on the need for a wound bed.

While you are correct on most all fronts, I believe you are still failing to make the distinction between atrophic scarring and hypertrophic scarring. Things become rather confused when we refer to both responses to injury simply as "scars," so I would remind you that atrophic scarring is not scar tissue, but rather it is the absence of scar tissue, as well as the absence of proper healing. Hypertrophic scars contain scar tissue, while atrophic scars do not.

Concerning the wound bed problem, while not completely sold to the concern as I have not seen any legitimate evidence that would provoke it, I have considered this. I believe you are not realizing a fundamental piece of my argument. Under my theory, a wound bed would be created: The wound from the injection. At the very least, utilizing the modality of treatment I have posed, small, deep scars (which are what most people with acne scarring deal with) could be treated using an injection of DHG into the center of the depression. The damage of the needle penetrating the skin would provoke a healing response, and then the injected DHG would take over from there.

I believe that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that "growth factors, fibroblasts, neutrophils, and everything else" do not simply lay dormant in reserve somewhere in the body. One would think that they are all around, circulating, and constantly changing. In fact, fibroblasts are found in shocking numbers throughout the body. Thus, even without the injection-induced wound, regenerative cells would still utilize the synthetic scaffold, perhaps to a lesser degree than if they were being motivated by injury, but nonetheless, they would find themselves along the scaffold.

While anything is possible, I unfortunately do not believe that the injection of DHG could be used to treat large areas of depression. It would be most effective, even if uncomfortable, to excise the afflicted area, and then apply DHG. However, luckily, many of us simply deal with small icepick scars.

And concerning decorin, firstly, understand that there is a bit of a distinction to be made here. CAR-decorin is a specialized type of decorin that is being researched, and is independent to conventional decorin and its research. Regarding Erkki Ruoslahti's statement, I should not have to point out why it is moronic and not applicable to argument. It simply states that they have not tried it on existing hypertrophic scars, and do not intend to. This does not in any way support arguments against its effectiveness. In fact, I would say that if anything, it supports arguments for its effectiveness. There is no possible way for them to know whether or not it would work on chronic scarring until they test it, and given the current evidence that indicates that it would be effective on chronic scarring, we can safely theorize that it would be effective on chronic scarring. Welcome to science. And in case anyone needed further convincing: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384090

Allow me to write out the title of the paper:

"Decorin blocks scarring and cystic cavitation in acute and induces scar dissolution in chronic spinal cord wounds."

"Induces scar dissolution in chronic spinal cord wounds."

An excerpt from the abstract, " . . . in chronic lesions, Decorin-induction of tPA and MMP (concomitant with reduced complimentary levels of TIMP and PAI-1) leads to dissolution of the mature established scar by fibrolysis." In other words, and I cannot emphasize this enough, do not blindly follow those who utilize, and do not find yourself utilizing, questionable, circular, "it is this way because it is" reasoning, even if the person utilizing this reasoning is a professional. Regardless of profession, many people are simply incorrect. This way of thinking inhibits progress.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much misinformation on this page . . .

I would implore everyone on this forum, as well as guests to this forum to only take heed of posts that actually utilize verified scientific information, sources, and common sense. On this page, golfpanther is about the only one that is on the right track. However, golfpanther, allow me to pose my counterargument.

Golfpanther and everyone, i may have an opinion to reply Bozo as stated in my second last post, but bozo there stated that atrophic scars are different than hyperthropic and keloid scars...

We all should reconsider about this.. even if hydrogel works, our acne atrophic scar may not get the same result im afraid

What do you guys think?

It's something to think about but immaterial to how the dextran hydrogel would function and be used (at least based on the trials with mice, which we're all familiar with).

The only way the dextran hydrogel works is to create a wound bed through excision or dissolving the scar tissue. At that point, the type of scar that it was (since it has now been removed from the body) is irrelevant. The dextran hydrogel would then be placed on the new wound bed that had been created and allowed to do its work.

Hopefully, it would then interfere with the normal scarring pathway for human healing and lead to a path of regeneration. It's not used as an injectable into already existing scars; it needs a wound bed to function properly. Just look at the original research paper; the investigators didn't scar the mouse, wait for scar tissue to form and then inject the hydrogel into the scar. They burned the mouse, removed the damaged tissue and then place the dextran hydrogel over the wound bed. We can assume the same methodology would be applied to humans if its found to be effective in our species.

Golfpanther, I think you slightly misunderstood my theory, and perhaps are not aware of the differences between different types of scarring. While I appreciate your speculation, arguing that it cannot be used as an injection because it can't does not seem particularly reasonable. Granted, my theory is just a theory, so let me again clarify why I think that DHG could be used as an injection.

Firstly, understand that the fundamental difference between a hypertrophic scar and an atrophic scar is that hypertrophic scars are the result of an over expression of collagen in response to injury, while atrophic scars are the result of an under expression of collagen due to internal damage of the ECM, and incomplete healing. Therefore, your statement about DHG only working after the scar tissue is excised or dissolved, while true in hypertrophic scarring, is not true to the type of scarring that we are talking about. The reason for this is that atrophic scars do not possess any actual scar tissue, and so there is nothing there to dissolve. And consider, just because the researchers applied DHG a certain way in the original research paper, does not mean that that particular method is the only one that is effective. Many different treatments and medicines have multiple ways that they treat an issue, and multiple ways that they can be used. The only reason, to the best of common knowledge, that DHG is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue is the same reason why any treatment is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue: the over expression of dense collagen fibers prevents regenerative cells from penetrating into the tissue. This is why I theorize that DHG, when injected into atrophic scarring, which possesses no over expression of dense collagen fibers, could be effective in treating the "scar."

I appreciate all the factual information you are presenting and think it's helpful to talk about these things. However, I've talked to Guoming Sun (one of the author's of the original dextran hydrogel paper) and he assured me that you need a wound bed for DHG to work.

It's designed to take the normal healing response (scarring) and interfere in such a way that guides it more toward regeneration. Without the healing process being initiated the growth factors, fibroblasts, neutrophils and everything else won't be recruited to the site.

If you were to inject dextran hydrogel into an already formed scar, nothing would happen; or at least not a reversal of the scar tissue into regeneration. The reason is that since it's a wound scaffold it merely interacts with the natural healing mechanisms of the body. It doesn't send signals to the body to change the composition of scarred skin (i.e stop producing too much collagen or produce more depending on the wound type).

There is other research into ways to reverse already scarred tissue into perfect skin without excision, but the dextran hydrogel is not in that camp (this is one of the reasons it can be considered a device because as a scaffold it's not require a chemical action on its behalf—you would almost certainly need a catalyst coming from the treatment itself with an injectable as you described). The lack of active component means it can get to market to us sooner because you don't have to make sure the active component isn't also doing something terrible to your patients outside of what's being tested like say, forming a tumor, which is why anything with stem cells will take a long time.

Again, all of this is great information but the dextran hydrogel needs a wound bed to function as intended (at least for now and as far as I can tell it will remain that way). It requires excision or some other process to remove the scar completely in order to create said wound bed to allow the dextran hydrogel to guide the healing process toward regeneration. Trust me, I wish excision, debridement or nasty peptides that dissolve scars wouldn't be necessary for me to get regenerated skin. But for this method at least, that's what we have.

Edit:

One last thing, a while ago now I reached out to Erkki Ruoslahti (the leader of researcher into CAR-decorin) and he said pretty much what I said about his research:

"We make CAR-decorin in cultured cells. We have not tested CAR-decorin in old scars, mostly because there is no reason to expect that it would work. If the scar is first surgically removed, decorin should prevent the formation of a new scar, but we have no data on that." - Erkki Ruoslahti

The key part there is "there is no reason to expect that it would work" in regards to using it on an old scar without excision. Again, most of the research into the idea of complete regeneration is built on the need for a wound bed.

While you are correct on most all fronts, I believe you are still failing to make the distinction between atrophic scarring and hypertrophic scarring. Things become rather confused when we refer to both responses to injury simply as "scars," so I would remind you that atrophic scarring is not scar tissue, but rather it is the absence of scar tissue, as well as the absence of proper healing. Hypertrophic scars contain scar tissue, while atrophic scars do not.

Concerning the wound bed problem, while not completely sold to the concern as I have not seen any legitimate evidence that would provoke it, I have considered this. I believe you are not realizing a fundamental piece of my argument. Under my theory, a wound bed would be created: The wound from the injection. At the very least, utilizing the modality of treatment I have posed, small, deep scars (which are what most people with acne scarring deal with) could be treated using an injection of DHG into the center of the depression. The damage of the needle penetrating the skin would provoke a healing response, and then the injected DHG would take over from there.

I believe that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that "growth factors, fibroblasts, neutrophils, and everything else" do not simply lay dormant in reserve somewhere in the body. One would think that they are all around, circulating, and constantly changing. In fact, fibroblasts are found in shocking numbers throughout the body. Thus, even without the injection-induced wound, regenerative cells would still utilize the synthetic scaffold, perhaps to a lesser degree than if they were being motivated by injury, but nonetheless, they would find themselves along the scaffold.

While anything is possible, I unfortunately do not believe that the injection of DHG could be used to treat large areas of depression. It would be most effective, even if uncomfortable, to excise the afflicted area, and then apply DHG. However, luckily, many of us simply deal with small icepick scars.

And concerning decorin, firstly, understand that there is a bit of a distinction to be made here. CAR-decorin is a specialized type of decorin that is being researched, and is independent to conventional decorin and its research. Regarding Erkki Ruoslahti's statement, I should not have to point out why it is moronic and not applicable to argument. It simply states that they have not tried it on existing hypertrophic scars, and do not intend to. This does not in any way support arguments against its effectiveness. In fact, I would say that if anything, it supports arguments for its effectiveness. There is no possible way for them to know whether or not it would work on chronic scarring until they test it, and given the current evidence that indicates that it would be effective on chronic scarring, we can safely theorize that it would be effective on chronic scarring. Welcome to science. And in case anyone needed further convincing: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384090

Allow me to write out the title of the paper:

"Decorin blocks scarring and cystic cavitation in acute and induces scar dissolution in chronic spinal cord wounds."

"Induces scar dissolution in chronic spinal cord wounds."

An excerpt from the abstract, " . . . in chronic lesions, Decorin-induction of tPA and MMP (concomitant with reduced complimentary levels of TIMP and PAI-1) leads to dissolution of the mature established scar by fibrolysis." In other words, and I cannot emphasize this enough, do not blindly follow those who utilize, and do not find yourself utilizing, questionable, circular, "it is this way because it is" reasoning, even if the person utilizing this reasoning is a professional. Regardless of profession, many people are simply incorrect. This way of thinking inhibits progress.

All good stuff, but I think you're getting hung up on types of scarring and as I've said repeatedly that is of little material importance to how the dextran hydrogel works.

In your theory (injecting the material into the scar and creating a wound via the injection itself) I guess it's conceivable that it could work but I see one major problem; the surrounding tissue aside from that small injection would be scar tissue. Scar tissue blocks the body's normal flow and regulation of things that comprise healthy skin (e.g. decorin for example is found in far less in scarred tissue than it is in the rest of the healthy skin in the body). The surrounding scar tissue would hinder the body's (and it does with things like skin grafts currently for example, which is one reason why the entire area is debrided) ability to recruit the things needed in a normal wound response that would allow the hydrogel to do its work.

Atrophic scars typically result from a loss of fat and muscle (hence their depressed appearance). There is nothing in the present research with the dextran hydrogel that indicates an injection (even with the creation of a small wound bed) would provide complete regeneration. Sure, we can get into conjecture about what might be possible, but I fail to see what good that will do. Would an injection be preferable to excision, debridement, lasers etc.? Heck yes, but the dextran hydrogel gives no indication that it is such a treatment.

On decorin, scar dissolution in a spinal column is not the same as complete regeneration in the skin. Human skin (and the healing process of it) is one of the most complex organs in the human body. Skin has appendages like hair, sebaceous glands, sweat glands so merely dissolving the scar tissue wouldn't automatically equate to complete regeneration. I'm not downplaying the importance of the research paper you linked in terms of what it can do for spinal cords, but making the assumption that two very different parts of the human body would react identically to the same treatment is too far a reach. That's not science, it's conjecture—science would require actually testing the hypothesis you presented. And Ruoslahti didn't merely say they hadn't tried it, but instead said, "there is no reason to expect that it would work." In a perfect world there would be limitless resources and everyone could try everything. But Ruoslahti (like all scientists) is building his research on expectancies that have been forged from previous work and with skin at least the implication seems to be that you need a wound bed in order to steer the body toward regeneration.

I agree that it's good to question assumptions by peope in authority like Ruoslahti. However, I also feel like reaching for conclusions that lack (at present) empirical evidence can be just as much a hindrance to advancing things further. Bottom line, what difference does it really make? If after excision and application of the hydrogel you get complete regeneration (regardless of what type of scar was removed) then everyone on this board would have gotten exactly what they wanted, no? Sure, if an injectable comes along later everyone would jump at that, but the DHG we've come to talk about so much on here has no evidence to support it will be that treatment. Things could change, but if it works, it works. Cut out that scar and slap it on there!

We're both on the same team here, but I just don't see the point in talking about hypotheticals when it comes to how the dextran hydrogel might work or could work in the future as an injectable. I'd rather just stick with what we have at our disposal. Now, if I was myself a researcher in this field I'd probably be the first to jump in with both feet toward a more consumer friendly method of application (e.g. one that didn't involve cutting big chunks of skin off). But as I'm not, I'll just do my best to keep up with the literature that's being presented in journals and if DHG works, I don't really mind having to go through excision.

Edited by golfpanther
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone should just get more efficient employees lol. how many tests do you need to do on animals that takes 2 freaking years?

its very stupid of them to delay the market time , a cure for scars would be big and all the money from lasers would go to them the faster they release.

It's not so much about the time the actual trials take themselves (although, the tests are usually repeated several times to prove their efficacy, which does take time), but rather all the other stuff that goes along with it. For example: applying for and procuring funding, acquisition of specimens (in this case pigs), lab space and equipment, a place to store the test subjects (housing mice is quite different than pigs), hiring of personnel that are qualified to aide in the research if they aren't already on staff and so on. You can't simply test it one time and get approval. It's part of a process that must show your results are repeatable with the same level of efficacy.

Now, I will say that if and when we reach human trials with the dextran hydrogel and it works perfectly in a phase 1 clinical trial then I'm pretty sure things would be expedited (at least for the use on people like soldiers injured in war). A while back I looked into the extreme cases the FDA outlined as possibilities for being rushed to market. Most dealt with the immediacy of life threatening disease or illness but to my recollection a few clauses could probably be bent to work in favor of the hydrogel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't a human do human trial now, heck i'll do one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DH regenerates the worst case of injury, 3rd degree burns in mice, now we need to now if it Works on pigs and on humans, expeculate about how to treat atrophic scars with DH in this moment is useless from my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting news and thanks for posting the website, thecureforscars.

I think it's important for us to remember that while we all want the dextran hydrogel to work and be on the market ASAP, Gerecht's lab is also doing other research that likely divides her time and their resources. This year alone they have 14 published articles, some connected to the work going on with the hydrogel and some not (they're involved heavily in cancer research as well).

Also, on the subject of a timeline, going off their original quoted timeframe for approval after starting human trials (if the FDA considers the hydrogel a device) of 18-24 months that would put us somewhere in the neighborhood of 2018-2019 for when the hydrogel hits the market (if human trials start in mid-late 2016 as written on the website). It's not ideal, but quicker than many people were speculating about on the board.

Obviously, this is all just an estimate based on present information, which could change drastically. I hope they have a paper upcoming for what results they've gathered so far, but in my previous conversations with Dr. Sun he said that was unlikely (although, he works at Columbia now and at the time of the email so he could be wrong).

JT1986, have you been in direct contact with them recently?

Not for some time, since I was aware that ADG Creative was working the final touches of the website. I believe that contacting them though the page will make the flow of information much smoother now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been waiting from 2008

I hope this is it... im tired mentally and psychologically. Hope the long awaited cure will be herw

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much misinformation on this page . . .

I would implore everyone on this forum, as well as guests to this forum to only take heed of posts that actually utilize verified scientific information, sources, and common sense. On this page, golfpanther is about the only one that is on the right track. However, golfpanther, allow me to pose my counterargument.

Golfpanther and everyone, i may have an opinion to reply Bozo as stated in my second last post, but bozo there stated that atrophic scars are different than hyperthropic and keloid scars...

We all should reconsider about this.. even if hydrogel works, our acne atrophic scar may not get the same result im afraid

What do you guys think?

It's something to think about but immaterial to how the dextran hydrogel would function and be used (at least based on the trials with mice, which we're all familiar with).

The only way the dextran hydrogel works is to create a wound bed through excision or dissolving the scar tissue. At that point, the type of scar that it was (since it has now been removed from the body) is irrelevant. The dextran hydrogel would then be placed on the new wound bed that had been created and allowed to do its work.

Hopefully, it would then interfere with the normal scarring pathway for human healing and lead to a path of regeneration. It's not used as an injectable into already existing scars; it needs a wound bed to function properly. Just look at the original research paper; the investigators didn't scar the mouse, wait for scar tissue to form and then inject the hydrogel into the scar. They burned the mouse, removed the damaged tissue and then place the dextran hydrogel over the wound bed. We can assume the same methodology would be applied to humans if its found to be effective in our species.

Golfpanther, I think you slightly misunderstood my theory, and perhaps are not aware of the differences between different types of scarring. While I appreciate your speculation, arguing that it cannot be used as an injection because it can't does not seem particularly reasonable. Granted, my theory is just a theory, so let me again clarify why I think that DHG could be used as an injection.

Firstly, understand that the fundamental difference between a hypertrophic scar and an atrophic scar is that hypertrophic scars are the result of an over expression of collagen in response to injury, while atrophic scars are the result of an under expression of collagen due to internal damage of the ECM, and incomplete healing. Therefore, your statement about DHG only working after the scar tissue is excised or dissolved, while true in hypertrophic scarring, is not true to the type of scarring that we are talking about. The reason for this is that atrophic scars do not possess any actual scar tissue, and so there is nothing there to dissolve. And consider, just because the researchers applied DHG a certain way in the original research paper, does not mean that that particular method is the only one that is effective. Many different treatments and medicines have multiple ways that they treat an issue, and multiple ways that they can be used. The only reason, to the best of common knowledge, that DHG is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue is the same reason why any treatment is not effective when applied directly to hypertrophic scar tissue: the over expression of dense collagen fibers prevents regenerative cells from penetrating into the tissue. This is why I theorize that DHG, when injected into atrophic scarring, which possesses no over expression of dense collagen fibers, could be effective in treating the "scar."

I appreciate all the factual information you are presenting and think it's helpful to talk about these things. However, I've talked to Guoming Sun (one of the author's of the original dextran hydrogel paper) and he assured me that you need a wound bed for DHG to work.

It's designed to take the normal healing response (scarring) and interfere in such a way that guides it more toward regeneration. Without the healing process being initiated the growth factors, fibroblasts, neutrophils and everything else won't be recruited to the site.

If you were to inject dextran hydrogel into an already formed scar, nothing would happen; or at least not a reversal of the scar tissue into regeneration. The reason is that since it's a wound scaffold it merely interacts with the natural healing mechanisms of the body. It doesn't send signals to the body to change the composition of scarred skin (i.e stop producing too much collagen or produce more depending on the wound type).

There is other research into ways to reverse already scarred tissue into perfect skin without excision, but the dextran hydrogel is not in that camp (this is one of the reasons it can be considered a device because as a scaffold it's not require a chemical action on its behalf—you would almost certainly need a catalyst coming from the treatment itself with an injectable as you described). The lack of active component means it can get to market to us sooner because you don't have to make sure the active component isn't also doing something terrible to your patients outside of what's being tested like say, forming a tumor, which is why anything with stem cells will take a long time.

Again, all of this is great information but the dextran hydrogel needs a wound bed to function as intended (at least for now and as far as I can tell it will remain that way). It requires excision or some other process to remove the scar completely in order to create said wound bed to allow the dextran hydrogel to guide the healing process toward regeneration. Trust me, I wish excision, debridement or nasty peptides that dissolve scars wouldn't be necessary for me to get regenerated skin. But for this method at least, that's what we have.

Edit:

One last thing, a while ago now I reached out to Erkki Ruoslahti (the leader of researcher into CAR-decorin) and he said pretty much what I said about his research:

"We make CAR-decorin in cultured cells. We have not tested CAR-decorin in old scars, mostly because there is no reason to expect that it would work. If the scar is first surgically removed, decorin should prevent the formation of a new scar, but we have no data on that." - Erkki Ruoslahti

The key part there is "there is no reason to expect that it would work" in regards to using it on an old scar without excision. Again, most of the research into the idea of complete regeneration is built on the need for a wound bed.

While you are correct on most all fronts, I believe you are still failing to make the distinction between atrophic scarring and hypertrophic scarring. Things become rather confused when we refer to both responses to injury simply as "scars," so I would remind you that atrophic scarring is not scar tissue, but rather it is the absence of scar tissue, as well as the absence of proper healing. Hypertrophic scars contain scar tissue, while atrophic scars do not.

Concerning the wound bed problem, while not completely sold to the concern as I have not seen any legitimate evidence that would provoke it, I have considered this. I believe you are not realizing a fundamental piece of my argument. Under my theory, a wound bed would be created: The wound from the injection. At the very least, utilizing the modality of treatment I have posed, small, deep scars (which are what most people with acne scarring deal with) could be treated using an injection of DHG into the center of the depression. The damage of the needle penetrating the skin would provoke a healing response, and then the injected DHG would take over from there.

I believe that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that "growth factors, fibroblasts, neutrophils, and everything else" do not simply lay dormant in reserve somewhere in the body. One would think that they are all around, circulating, and constantly changing. In fact, fibroblasts are found in shocking numbers throughout the body. Thus, even without the injection-induced wound, regenerative cells would still utilize the synthetic scaffold, perhaps to a lesser degree than if they were being motivated by injury, but nonetheless, they would find themselves along the scaffold.

While anything is possible, I unfortunately do not believe that the injection of DHG could be used to treat large areas of depression. It would be most effective, even if uncomfortable, to excise the afflicted area, and then apply DHG. However, luckily, many of us simply deal with small icepick scars.

And concerning decorin, firstly, understand that there is a bit of a distinction to be made here. CAR-decorin is a specialized type of decorin that is being researched, and is independent to conventional decorin and its research. Regarding Erkki Ruoslahti's statement, I should not have to point out why it is moronic and not applicable to argument. It simply states that they have not tried it on existing hypertrophic scars, and do not intend to. This does not in any way support arguments against its effectiveness. In fact, I would say that if anything, it supports arguments for its effectiveness. There is no possible way for them to know whether or not it would work on chronic scarring until they test it, and given the current evidence that indicates that it would be effective on chronic scarring, we can safely theorize that it would be effective on chronic scarring. Welcome to science. And in case anyone needed further convincing: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384090

Allow me to write out the title of the paper:

"Decorin blocks scarring and cystic cavitation in acute and induces scar dissolution in chronic spinal cord wounds."

"Induces scar dissolution in chronic spinal cord wounds."

An excerpt from the abstract, " . . . in chronic lesions, Decorin-induction of tPA and MMP (concomitant with reduced complimentary levels of TIMP and PAI-1) leads to dissolution of the mature established scar by fibrolysis." In other words, and I cannot emphasize this enough, do not blindly follow those who utilize, and do not find yourself utilizing, questionable, circular, "it is this way because it is" reasoning, even if the person utilizing this reasoning is a professional. Regardless of profession, many people are simply incorrect. This way of thinking inhibits progress.

All good stuff, but I think you're getting hung up on types of scarring and as I've said repeatedly that is of little material importance to how the dextran hydrogel works.

In your theory (injecting the material into the scar and creating a wound via the injection itself) I guess it's conceivable that it could work but I see one major problem; the surrounding tissue aside from that small injection would be scar tissue. Scar tissue blocks the body's normal flow and regulation of things that comprise healthy skin (e.g. decorin for example is found in far less in scarred tissue than it is in the rest of the healthy skin in the body). The surrounding scar tissue would hinder the body's (and it does with things like skin grafts currently for example, which is one reason why the entire area is debrided) ability to recruit the things needed in a normal wound response that would allow the hydrogel to do its work.

Atrophic scars typically result from a loss of fat and muscle (hence their depressed appearance). There is nothing in the present research with the dextran hydrogel that indicates an injection (even with the creation of a small wound bed) would provide complete regeneration. Sure, we can get into conjecture about what might be possible, but I fail to see what good that will do. Would an injection be preferable to excision, debridement, lasers etc.? Heck yes, but the dextran hydrogel gives no indication that it is such a treatment.

On decorin, scar dissolution in a spinal column is not the same as complete regeneration in the skin. Human skin (and the healing process of it) is one of the most complex organs in the human body. Skin has appendages like hair, sebaceous glands, sweat glands so merely dissolving the scar tissue wouldn't automatically equate to complete regeneration. I'm not downplaying the importance of the research paper you linked in terms of what it can do for spinal cords, but making the assumption that two very different parts of the human body would react identically to the same treatment is too far a reach. That's not science, it's conjecture—science would require actually testing the hypothesis you presented. And Ruoslahti didn't merely say they hadn't tried it, but instead said, "there is no reason to expect that it would work." In a perfect world there would be limitless resources and everyone could try everything. But Ruoslahti (like all scientists) is building his research on expectancies that have been forged from previous work and with skin at least the implication seems to be that you need a wound bed in order to steer the body toward regeneration.

I agree that it's good to question assumptions by peope in authority like Ruoslahti. However, I also feel like reaching for conclusions that lack (at present) empirical evidence can be just as much a hindrance to advancing things further. Bottom line, what difference does it really make? If after excision and application of the hydrogel you get complete regeneration (regardless of what type of scar was removed) then everyone on this board would have gotten exactly what they wanted, no? Sure, if an injectable comes along later everyone would jump at that, but the DHG we've come to talk about so much on here has no evidence to support it will be that treatment. Things could change, but if it works, it works. Cut out that scar and slap it on there!

We're both on the same team here, but I just don't see the point in talking about hypotheticals when it comes to how the dextran hydrogel might work or could work in the future as an injectable. I'd rather just stick with what we have at our disposal. Now, if I was myself a researcher in this field I'd probably be the first to jump in with both feet toward a more consumer friendly method of application (e.g. one that didn't involve cutting big chunks of skin off). But as I'm not, I'll just do my best to keep up with the literature that's being presented in journals and if DHG works, I don't really mind having to go through excision.

I agree, we are on the same team. I also agree, what is said on this forum, in reality, has no impact on the development and treatment methods of DHG. I am more concerned with the people of this forum understanding the pathology of their condition. It is a dangerous thing for desperate people to possess misinformation. And yes, I am getting caught up on the different types of scarring, as the differences are fundamental to my theory, and I fear that you still are not understanding why.

"I guess it's conceivable that (your theory) could work but I see one major problem; the surrounding tissue aside from that small injection would be scar tissue." Remember, we are talking about atrophic scarring here, which is the absence of tissue, including scar tissue. Atrophy does not inhibit regeneration as hypertrophy does, as there is no over expression of collagen. Atrophy is merely not capable of regenerating without provocation. The difference must be understood here. The only reason that atrophy does not regenerate is due to the loss of a native scaffold for cells to utilize (excluding cases of fat loss). This is why I believe that my theory, even without a wound bed, could be plausible. We are not talking about hypertrophic scarring that inhibits regeneration. We are talking about atrophy that simply requires an ECM to provoke healing. As to the science behind the theory, I am not basing my theory off of the indications of DHG itself, what is known about it, what its researchers know about it, or how it is conventionally utilized, as you seem to imply. I am basing my theory off of an understanding of how a synthetic ECM works. And that is what DHG is: a glorified synthetic ECM. It is not some newfangled technology. ECM's have been around for decades. DHG is simply a more effective ECM than we have seen in the past.

"Atrophic scars typically result from a loss of fat and muscle (hence their depressed appearance). There is nothing in the present research with the dextran hydrogel that indicates an injection (even with the creation of a small wound bed) would provide complete regeneration. Sure, we can get into conjecture about what might be possible, but I fail to see what good that will do. Would an injection be preferable to excision, debridement, lasers etc.? Heck yes, but the dextran hydrogel gives no indication that it is such a treatment." 1.) It is my understanding that, save for severe cases, atrophic scars such as those seen in cases of acne scarring result primarily from a loss of collagen due to damage of the native ECM. I just wanted to get that out of the way. 2.) Correct, within the single research paper published that pertains to DHG, they did not test nor mention DHG as an injection treatment. This does not mean it is not plausible. Again, working off of an understanding synthetic ECM's and prior research about them, we can safely theorize that DHG could possibly be used as an injection treatment. We do not say this because of what is known about DHG in and of itself, but rather because of what is known about ECM's as a whole. 3.) Yes, as I have mentioned, in the interest of not placing all of my chips on an untested theory, I do not pretend to know that DHG used as an injection would 100%, undoubtedly elicit complete regeneration. But I do not pretend to know that it cannot. And if it could only achieve some amount of regeneration, then I believe this would still be a useful and preferable method to those whose scarring is not particularly apparent. As you said yourself, injection would be preferable to other forms of treatment. A compromise between regeneration and comfort would most certainly be an option for some. This is assuming that DHG, when injected into atrophy, would not provoke complete regeneration. 4.) If you fail to see the benefit of conjecture about what might and might not be possible, then I question your purpose for being on this forum.

As for decorin, I will not go too deep into the subject, as I do not particularly concern myself with it. You state that it is a far reach to assume that decorin could have the same effect on external scar tissue as it does on internal scar tissue. Again, you fail to understand the pathology of the condition. Scar tissue, at large, is scar tissue. Scarred skin is not even actual skin. It is made out of the same stuff (albeit a different kind of the same stuff), which is collagen, but lacks the same properties, purposes, and functionality as skin. I do not know how much you actually read of the research paper on decorin that I posted, but if you read thoroughly and possess an understanding of scar tissue, you will see that the scar tissue that was treated in the spinal cords of the test subjects is the same scar tissue that can be found externally among skin. Scar tissue is scar tissue. It is an over expression of collagen, independent to where it is found on or inside the body. Thus, it can only be assumed that decorin would have a beneficial effect on scarring of the skin.

Several times, you have cited a lack of empirical evidence, but this is simply not true.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a New Account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now