Pascual G, Pérez-Köhler B, Rodríguez M, Sotomayor S, Bellón Juan M
Department of Medical Specialties, Networking Research Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Faculty of Medicine, Alcalá University, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb;28(2):559-69. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3205-z. Epub 2013 Sep 18.
This study compared the in vitro and in vivo behaviors at the peritoneal interface of a new polymer material (Bio-A) and of two biologic non-cross-linked materials (Tutomesh [Tuto] and Strattice [St]), all biodegradable.
Omentum mesothelial cells from rabbits were seeded onto the three prosthetic materials tested. At 1, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h after implantation, mesothelial cover was performed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). In the in vivo study, 3 × 3 cm mesh fragments were placed on the parietal peritoneum of the same rabbits and fixed at the four corners with individual stitches. The implants were randomized such that six fragments of each material were implanted in nine animals (2 per animal). Adhesion formation was quantified by sequential laparoscopy and image analysis 3, 7, and 14 days after implantation. The animals were killed at 90 days, and the meshes were subjected to microscopy and immunohistochemistry.
The in vitro mesothelial cover was significantly greater for St than for Bio-A at each time point. The percentage of cover for St was also higher than for Tuto 16 and 24 h after seeding and higher for Tuto than for Bio-A at all time points. Compared with the biologic meshes, significantly higher adhesion percentages were recorded for Bio-A. At 90 days after implantation, differences in absorption measured as percentage of reduction in mesh thickness were detected among all the meshes. The least absorbed was St. The neoperitoneum thickness was significantly greater for the biologic meshes than for the polymer mesh, although this variable also differed significantly between St and Tuto. Macrophage counts were higher for Bio-A than for the biologic meshes.
Greater mesothelial cover was observed in vitro for St. In vivo, adhesion formation and the macrophage response induced by Bio-A were greater than those elicited by the biologic materials. Bio-A and Tuto showed substantial biodegradation compared with St.
本研究比较了一种新型聚合物材料(Bio-A)以及两种生物非交联材料(Tutomesh [Tuto]和Strattice [St])在腹膜界面的体外和体内行为,所有材料均可生物降解。
将兔大网膜间皮细胞接种到三种受试假体材料上。植入后1、4、8、16和24小时,使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)进行间皮覆盖观察。在体内研究中,将3×3 cm的网片碎片放置在同一只兔子的壁层腹膜上,并用单独的缝线固定在四个角。植入物随机分组,每种材料的六个碎片植入九只动物体内(每只动物2个)。在植入后3、7和14天,通过连续腹腔镜检查和图像分析对粘连形成进行定量。90天时处死动物,对网片进行显微镜检查和免疫组织化学分析。
在每个时间点,St的体外间皮覆盖均显著大于Bio-A。接种后16和24小时,St的覆盖百分比也高于Tuto,且在所有时间点Tuto的覆盖百分比均高于Bio-A。与生物网片相比,Bio-A的粘连百分比显著更高。植入90天后,所有网片在以网片厚度减少百分比衡量的吸收方面存在差异。吸收最少的是St。生物网片的新腹膜厚度显著大于聚合物网片,尽管St和Tuto之间在该变量上也存在显著差异。Bio-A的巨噬细胞计数高于生物网片。
体外观察到St的间皮覆盖更大。在体内,Bio-A诱导的粘连形成和巨噬细胞反应大于生物材料引发的反应。与St相比,Bio-A和Tuto表现出显著的生物降解。