Im confused about the terms resolution and regeneration. In the danish textbook they describe resolution as a complete healing with return to normal tissue function but in Robbins he calls this healing outcome regeneration. Robbins don’t even mention resolution but in other texts I seen resolution mentioned as a part of the healing cascade. So what exactly is the meaning of resolution and regeneration?
I understand your confusion. What the Danish textbook (Almen patologi – teori og praksis) calls “resolution” is from a morphological point-of-view identical to what Robbins Basic Pathology calls “regeneration”. Actually, the Danish textbook describes resolution as a phenomenon with phagocytosis of foreign material and absorption of liquid, and this is perhaps a little far-fetched when talking about healing (because it does not imply a destruction of normal tissue morphology). English textbooks in general do not use the term resolution.
Hi Ben.
Our teacher told us that “if there’s necrosis, there will always be scar tissue”??
This doesn’t corresponds to what is said on this topic by you nor Henrik Hasseldam?
I’m confused…
Hi,
Sorry for the confusion. I think it relies on what is understood by “scar tissue”. The healing process includes formation of new collagenous tissue, which with extensive tissue destruction will result in formation of a scar. If only little tissue is affected, the “scar formation” will be so small that it in reality will be invisible by the naked eye. However, it will be possible to demonstrate changes in the composition of the connective tissue equal to that of “conventional” scar tissue.
I can perfectly understand why you are confused. In the ninth edition of Robbins they don’t use the term resolution anymore, instead they use regeneration. Thus, regeneration without scarring is the same as resolution. Small superficial tissue injuries (with intact basement membrane) in labile tissues, will result in resolution/regeneration without scarring.