Table 1.
Summary of FGF2 and EGF effects on experimental perforation.
| Authors | Study subject | Treatment strategy | Vehicle | Healing outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fina et al. [13] (1991) | GP-acute | 1 μg FGF-2 vs. PBS only+Gel | Gel | 1 mm TMPs: 55% in FGF-2 vs. 10% in PBS at 3 days; 2 mm TMPs: 87.5% in FGF-2 vs. 0% in PBS at 5 days |
| Fina et al. [14] (1993) | GP-acute | Group 1: 1 μg FGF-2 vs. 1 μg placebo (stabilizer solvent) alone; group 2: 1 μg FGF-2 vs. 1 μg stabilizers solvent | Group 1: no; group 2: Gel | Group 1. 1 mm TMPs: 60% in FGF-2 vs. 30% in placebo group by 7 days; 2 mm TMPs: 100% in FGF-2 vs. 33% in placebo group by 14 days Group 2. 2 mm TMPs: 100% in FGF-2 vs. 100% in placebo group by 14 days |
| Vrabec et al. [15] (1994) | Rats-acute | 100 μg/ml FGF-2 vs. Gly | Gly | 9.74 ± 2.31 days in FGF-2 vs. 13.74 ± 4.93 days in glycerol |
| Kato & Jackler [16] (1996) | Chinchillas-chronic | FGF-2 vs. buffer solution | Gel | 81% by 4 weeks in FGF-2 vs. 41% by 6.5 weeks in buffer solution |
| Friedman et al. [17] (1997) | Chinchilla-acute | FGF-2 vs. sterile saline for 2 weeks | NO | 100% in FGF-2 with 8-12 days vs. 100% in control group 6-18 days |
| Ozkaptan et al. [18] (1997) | GP-chronic | 400 ng FGF-2 vs. saline solution | No | 86.7% (13/15) in FGF-2 vs. 13.3% (2/15) in saline solution at 20 days |
| Chauvin et al. [19] (1999) | GP-acute | 1 mg HA, 0.4 μg FGF-2, 1.0 μg EGF vs. 0.1 ml Vasocidin | Vasocidin | 100% (7/7) in HA and 100% (7/7) in EGF at day 21, 85.7% (6/7) in FGF-2 and 63.6% (21/33) in Vasocidin at day 32 |
| Hakuba et al. [20] (2014) | GP-acute | FGF-2 vs. saline vs. control (FGF-2 or saline alone) | Gelatin HG | 100% in FGF2-HG, 62.5% in saline-HG, and 0% in no HG after 30 days |
| Zhang et al. [21] (2017) | SD rats-acute | FGF 2 vs. CM vs. SH | CM-CBD | 100% (16/16) in CM-CBD-FGF2, 75%(12/16) in CM, and 68.8% (11/16) in SH at day 14 |
| Santa Maria et al. [22] (2015) | Mice-chronic | HB-EGF, FGF-2, EGF, polymer | Polymer | 83.3% (15/18) in HB-EGF; 31.6% (6/19) in FGF-2; 15.8% (3/19) in EGF; 27.8% (5/18) in polymer for 4 weeks |
| Yao et al. (2020) [23] | SD rats-acute | ACS vs. FGF-2 vs. ACS+FGF-2 vs. SP | ACS | At one week: 71.4% vs. 42.9% vs. 100% vs. 0; at 2 weeks: 100% vs. 100% vs. 100% vs. 42.9% |
| Seonwoo et al. [24] (2013) | SD-chronic | EGF-CPS vs. SH | CPS | 56.5% (13/23) vs. 20.8% (4/24) for 10 weeks |
| Güneri et al. [25](2003) | SD rats-acute | 10 μl of 1% HA vs. n 10 μl of 400 g/ml EGF vs. 10 μl of 2 mg/ml Mit C vs. SH | Gel | The mean closure time was 8.8 ± 1.6 days in HA-treated, 7.4 ± 1.6 days in EGF-treated, no healing in Mit C-treated for 60 days, and 15 ± 2 days in SH. |
| Ramalho and Bento et al. [26] (2006) | Chinchillas-subacute | EGF vs. PF vs. EGF+PF vs. DW | Gel | 30.3% in EGF, 3.6% in PF, 16.5% in EGF+PF, and 8.7% in DW for 30 days |
| Amoils et al. [27] (1992) | Chinchilla-chronic | 25 μl EGF vs. 25 μl PBS | Gel | 81% (13/16) in EGF-treated ears vs. 25% (4/16) in PBS for 8 weeks |
| Lee et al. [28] (1994) | Chinchilla-chronic | 50 μl EGF vs. 50 μl PBS | Gel | 80% (12/15) in EGF and 20% (3/15) in PBS for 5 weeks |
| Dvorak et al. [29] (1995) | Chinchilla-chronic | 50 μl of EGF vs. PBS+Gel 3 times/week for 6 weeks | Gel | 100% (17/17) with 3.4 weeks in EGF vs. 80% (12/15) with 3.3 weeks in PBS |
| Santa Maria et al. [30] (2017) | Mice-chronic | 5 mg/mL HB-EGF vs. polymer only | Polymer | CSOM+ET: 100% (16/16) vs. 41% (7/17); CSOM: 100% (8/8) vs. 33.3% (3/9) |
CPS: chitosan patch scaffold; SD: Sprague-Dawle; GP: guinea pigs; ET: Eustachian tube; SH: spontaneous healing; HA: hyaluronic acid; CM: collagen membrane; CBD: collagen-binding domain; HG: hydrogel; Gly: glycerol; Gel: Gelfoam: HB: heparin binding; PF: pentoxifylline; DW: distilled water; ACS: acellular collagen scaffold; PBS: phosphate buffered saline; FGF2: fibroblast growth factor-2; EGF: epidermal growth factor; TMP: tympanic membrane perforation.