BACKGROUND: Biodegradable scaffolds have been used for regenerating the small intestine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) as scaffolds for intestinal regeneration in a rat model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A tubular one-ply or four-ply SIS was interposed between isolated jejunal segments in rats. The scaffolds were harvested at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after implantation, and the specimens were examined grossly and histologically. RESULTS: Significant contractions were observed in SIS scaffolds after implantation. The one-ply SIS contracted to 44% of its initial length at 2 weeks and continued to contract to 6% of its initial length at 8 weeks. The contraction of four-ply SIS scaffolds was less than that of the one-ply SIS, reaching 29% of its initial length at 8 weeks. Minimal epithelial and smooth muscular regeneration was observed in the SIS scaffolds after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: A significant shrinkage was observed in the SIS scaffolds after implantation. Although the four-ply SIS contracted less than the one-ply SIS, neither scaffold supported significant amount of intestinal regeneration.
BACKGROUND: Biodegradable scaffolds have been used for regenerating the small intestine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) as scaffolds for intestinal regeneration in a rat model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A tubular one-ply or four-ply SIS was interposed between isolated jejunal segments in rats. The scaffolds were harvested at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after implantation, and the specimens were examined grossly and histologically. RESULTS: Significant contractions were observed in SIS scaffolds after implantation. The one-ply SIS contracted to 44% of its initial length at 2 weeks and continued to contract to 6% of its initial length at 8 weeks. The contraction of four-ply SIS scaffolds was less than that of the one-ply SIS, reaching 29% of its initial length at 8 weeks. Minimal epithelial and smooth muscular regeneration was observed in the SIS scaffolds after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: A significant shrinkage was observed in the SIS scaffolds after implantation. Although the four-ply SIS contracted less than the one-ply SIS, neither scaffold supported significant amount of intestinal regeneration.
Authors: Christopher M Walthers; Chase J Lyall; Alireza K Nazemi; Puneet V Rana; James C Y Dunn Journal: Technology (Singap World Sci) Date: 2016-01-07
Authors: Khalid Algarrahi; Debra Franck; Chiara E Ghezzi; Vivian Cristofaro; Xuehui Yang; Maryrose P Sullivan; Yeun Goo Chung; Saif Affas; Russell Jennings; David L Kaplan; Carlos R Estrada; Joshua R Mauney Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: S Weih; M Kessler; H Fonouni; M Golriz; M Hafezi; A Mehrabi; S Holland-Cunz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Michael A Schumacher; Eitaro Aihara; Rui Feng; Amy Engevik; Noah F Shroyer; Karen M Ottemann; Roger T Worrell; Marshall H Montrose; Ramesh A Shivdasani; Yana Zavros Journal: J Physiol Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Troy A Markel; Paul R Crisostomo; Tim Lahm; Nathan M Novotny; Frederick J Rescorla; Joseph Tector; Daniel R Meldrum Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Anna V Piterina; Aidan J Cloonan; Claire L Meaney; Laura M Davis; Anthony Callanan; Michael T Walsh; Tim M McGloughlin Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 6.208