INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A new type of resorbable biomaterial intended for pelvic reconstruction was tested with respect to tissue regeneration and biocompatibility in rats. The biomaterial consisted of methoxypolyethyleneglycol-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (MPEG-PLGA). Implants were pure, enriched with extra-cellular matrix (ECM) or estrogen. METHODS: Ten implants of each type were tested for 3 and 8 weeks, respectively. Histological assessment of connective tissue organization, inflammation, vascularization, and thickness of regenerated tissue was undertaken. RESULTS: All implants had a high degree of biocompatibility. ECM-enriched implants had significantly higher inflammatory scores compared to pure implants at 3 weeks. At 8 weeks, neither of the parameters differed significantly. No trace of the implants remained. CONCLUSIONS: The MPEG-PLGA is highly biocompatible, degrades quickly, and seems inert in the process of tissue regeneration. Thus, it is hardly a candidate per se in reinforcement of pelvic reconstruction, but it could have a future role as carrier for stem cells.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A new type of resorbable biomaterial intended for pelvic reconstruction was tested with respect to tissue regeneration and biocompatibility in rats. The biomaterial consisted of methoxypolyethyleneglycol-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (MPEG-PLGA). Implants were pure, enriched with extra-cellular matrix (ECM) or estrogen. METHODS: Ten implants of each type were tested for 3 and 8 weeks, respectively. Histological assessment of connective tissue organization, inflammation, vascularization, and thickness of regenerated tissue was undertaken. RESULTS: All implants had a high degree of biocompatibility. ECM-enriched implants had significantly higher inflammatory scores compared to pure implants at 3 weeks. At 8 weeks, neither of the parameters differed significantly. No trace of the implants remained. CONCLUSIONS: The MPEG-PLGA is highly biocompatible, degrades quickly, and seems inert in the process of tissue regeneration. Thus, it is hardly a candidate per se in reinforcement of pelvic reconstruction, but it could have a future role as carrier for stem cells.
Authors: Olugbenga A Adekanmi; Robert M Freeman; Simon A Jackson; Mark Puckett; Luigi Bombieri; Malcolm R Waterfield Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2009-11
Authors: P K Sand; S Koduri; R W Lobel; H A Winkler; J Tomezsko; P J Culligan; R Goldberg Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lisa M Pierce; Arundhati Rao; Shannon S Baumann; Jocylen E Glassberg; Thomas J Kuehl; Tristi W Muir Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: R Keith Huffaker; Tristi W Muir; Arundhati Rao; Shannon S Baumann; Thomas J Kuehl; Lisa M Pierce Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: L Boulanger; M Boukerrou; C Rubod; A Fruchart; R J Courcol; P Devos; A Defossez; M Cosson Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Pamela A Moalli; Kristen M Debes; Leslie A Meyn; Nancy S Howden; Steven D Abramowitch Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kristin D McKeon-Fischer; John H Rossmeisl; Abby R Whittington; Joseph W Freeman Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Daniela Ulrich; Isabelle Le Teuff; Stephanie Huberlant; Patrick Carteron; Vincent Letouzey; Renaud de Tayrac Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniela Ulrich; Sharon L Edwards; Jacinta F White; Tommy Supit; John A M Ramshaw; Camden Lo; Anna Rosamilia; Jerome A Werkmeister; Caroline E Gargett Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 3.240