Literature DB >> 24043907

In-vivo degradation of poly(carbonate-urethane) based spine implants.

E Cipriani1, P Bracco, S M Kurtz, L Costa, M Zanetti.   

Abstract

Fourteen explanted Dynesys® spinal devices were analyzed for biostability and compared with a reference, never implanted, control. Both poly(carbonate-urethane) (PCU) spacers and polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) cords were analyzed. The effect of implantation was evaluated through the observation of physical alterations of the device surfaces, evaluation of the chemical degradation and fluids absorption on the devices and examination of the morphological and mechanical features. PCU spacers exhibited a variety of surface damage mechanisms, the most significant being abrasion and localized, microscopic surface cracks. Evidence of oxidation and chain scission were detected on PCU spacers ATR-FTIR. ATR-FTIR, DSC and hardness measurements also showed a slight heterogeneity in the composition of PCU. The extraction carried out on the PCU spacers revealed the presence of extractable polycarbonate segments. One spacer and all PET cords visually exhibited the presence of adherent biological material (proteins), confirmed by the ATR-FTIR results. GC/MS analyses of the extracts from PET cords revealed the presence of biological fluids residues, mainly cholesterol derivatives and fatty acids, probably trapped into the fiber network. No further chemical alterations were observed on the PET cords. Although the observed physical and chemical damage can be considered superficial, greater attention must be paid to the chemical degradation mechanisms of PCU and to the effect of byproducts on the body.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DSC; FTIR; In vivo degradation; Polycarbonate urethane

Year:  2013        PMID: 24043907      PMCID: PMC3772790          DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.03.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Polym Degrad Stab        ISSN: 0141-3910            Impact factor:   5.030


  32 in total

1.  Biocompatibility of poly(carbonate urethane)s with various degrees of nanophase separation.

Authors:  Shan-Hui Hsu; Yu-Chih Kao
Journal:  Macromol Biosci       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 4.979

2.  Chemical and morphological analysis of explanted polyurethane vascular prostheses: the challenge of removing fixed adhering tissue.

Authors:  Z Zhang; M W King; T V How; G Laroche; R Guidoin
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 12.479

Review 3.  Biodegradation of polyesters containing aromatic constituents.

Authors:  R J Müller; I Kleeberg; W D Deckwer
Journal:  J Biotechnol       Date:  2001-03-30       Impact factor: 3.307

Review 4.  In-vivo degradation of polyurethanes: transmission-FTIR microscopic characterization of polyurethanes sectioned by cryomicrotomy.

Authors:  S J McCarthy; G F Meijs; N Mitchell; P A Gunatillake; G Heath; A Brandwood; K Schindhelm
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 12.479

5.  Calcification and fatigue failure in a polyurethane heart value.

Authors:  G M Bernacca; T G Mackay; R Wilkinson; D J Wheatley
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 12.479

6.  In vivo biostability of polymeric spine implants: retrieval analyses from a United States investigational device exemption study.

Authors:  Ming Shen; Kai Zhang; Petra Koettig; William C Welch; John M Dawson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Vascugraft polyurethane arterial prosthesis as femoro-popliteal and femoro-peroneal bypasses in humans: pathological, structural and chemical analyses of four excised grafts.

Authors:  Z Zhang; Y Marois; R G Guidoin; P Bull; M Marois; T How; G Laroche; M W King
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 12.479

8.  Wear rate evaluation of a novel polycarbonate-urethane cushion form bearing for artificial hip joints.

Authors:  Jonathan J Elsner; Yoav Mezape; Keren Hakshur; Maoz Shemesh; Eran Linder-Ganz; Avi Shterling; Noam Eliaz
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 8.947

9.  Analysis and evaluation of a biomedical polycarbonate urethane tested in an in vitro study and an ovine arthroplasty model. Part II: in vivo investigation.

Authors:  Imran Khan; Nigel Smith; Eric Jones; Dudley S Finch; Ruth Elizabeth Cameron
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 12.479

10.  Effect of soft-segment chemistry on polyurethane biostability during in vitro fatigue loading.

Authors:  Michael J Wiggins; Matt MacEwan; James M Anderson; Anne Hiltner
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2004-03-15       Impact factor: 4.396

View more
  4 in total

1.  3D cell-printing of gradient multi-tissue interfaces for rotator cuff regeneration.

Authors:  Suhun Chae; Uijung Yong; Wonbin Park; Yoo-Mi Choi; In-Ho Jeon; Homan Kang; Jinah Jang; Hak Soo Choi; Dong-Woo Cho
Journal:  Bioact Mater       Date:  2022-05-11

2.  Degradation of Recalcitrant Polyurethane and Xenobiotic Additives by a Selected Landfill Microbial Community and Its Biodegradative Potential Revealed by Proximity Ligation-Based Metagenomic Analysis.

Authors:  Itzel Gaytán; Ayixon Sánchez-Reyes; Manuel Burelo; Martín Vargas-Suárez; Ivan Liachko; Maximilian Press; Shawn Sullivan; M Javier Cruz-Gómez; Herminia Loza-Tavera
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 5.640

3.  Bionate Biocompatibility: In Vivo Study in Rabbits.

Authors:  Amparo Vanaclocha-Saiz; Vicente Vanaclocha; Carlos Atienza; Pablo Jorda-Gomez; Víctor Primo-Capella; Carlos Barrios; Leyre Vanaclocha
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2022-08-19

4.  In vivo compatibility of Dynesys(®) spinal implants: a case series of five retrieved periprosthetic tissue samples and corresponding implants.

Authors:  M Neukamp; C Roeder; S Y Veruva; D W MacDonald; S M Kurtz; M J Steinbeck
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 3.134

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.