In vitro comparison of biological and synthetic materials for skeletal chest wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND

Various biological and synthetic materials have been proposed for use in skeletal chest wall reconstruction (SCWR). Because of the lack of studies allowing a direct comparison of SCWR materials, their clinical use often depends on the surgeon's preference and experience. The aim of this study was to analyze 6 synthetic and 3 biological materials frequently used in SCWR with respect to their cytotoxicity, bacterial adhesion, surface characteristics, and mechanical properties to facilitate data-driven decisions.

METHODS

The effect of the SCWR materials and their extracts on the metabolism of human skeletal muscle cells (SkMCs), dermal fibroblasts, adipose cells, and osteoblasts was analyzed in vitro. Bacterial adhesion was quantified by incubating samples in bacterial suspensions (Staphylococcus epidermidis, S aureus, and Escherichia coli), followed by counting colony-forming units and performing scanning electron microscopy. Moreover, the mechanical properties of the materials were analyzed under uniaxial tensile loading to failure.

RESULTS

The metabolism of all cell types seeded on the SCWR materials was reduced compared with untreated cells. With the exception of Vypro (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ), whose extracts significantly reduced fibroblast viability, no cytotoxic leachable substances were detected. Biological materials were less cytotoxic compared with synthetic ones, but they demonstrated increased bacterial adhesion. Synthetic materials demonstrated higher elongation to failure than did biological materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Biological and synthetic SCWR materials showed significant differences in their cytotoxicity, bacterial adhesion, and biomechanical properties, suggesting that they may be used for different indications in SCWR. Further comparable in vivo studies are needed to analyze their performance in different indications of clinical application.