The synthesis of a family of new poly(lactic acid-co-glycerol monostearate) (PLA-PGC18) copolymers and their use as biodegradable polymer dopants is reported to enhance the hydrophobicity of poly(lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nonwoven meshes. Solutions of PLGA are doped with PLA-PGC18 and electrospun to form meshes with micrometer-sized fibers. Fiber diameter, percent doping, and copolymer composition influence the nonwetting nature of the meshes and alter their mechanical (tensile) properties. Contact angles as high as 160° are obtained with 30% polymer dopant. Lastly, these meshes are nontoxic, as determined by an NIH/3T3 cell biocompatibility assay, and displayed a minimal foreign body response when implanted in mice. In summary, a general method for constructing biodegradable fibrous meshes with tunable hydrophobicity is described for use in tissue engineering and drug delivery applications.
The synthesis of a family of new poly(lactic acid-co-glycerol monostearate) (PLA-PGC18) copolymers and their use as biodegradable polymer dopants is reported to enhance the hydrophobicity of poly(lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nonwoven meshes. Solutions of PLGA are doped with PLA-PGC18 and electrospun to form meshes with micrometer-sized fibers. Fiber diameter, percent doping, and copolymer composition influence the nonwetting nature of the meshes and alter their mechanical (tensile) properties. Contact angles as high as 160° are obtained with 30% polymer dopant. Lastly, these meshes are nontoxic, as determined by an NIH/3T3 cell biocompatibility assay, and displayed a minimal foreign body response when implanted in mice. In summary, a general method for constructing biodegradable fibrous meshes with tunable hydrophobicity is described for use in tissue engineering and drug delivery applications.
Aliphatic biodegradable
polyesters, such as poly(lactic acid) (PLA),
poly(glycolic acid) (PGA), and poly(lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), are widely used polymers in the clinic and
biomedical research because they are nontoxic, biodegradable, and
readily synthesized.[1] Since the introduction
of PGA and PLGA sutures in the 1960s and early 1970s, respectively,[2−5] these poly(hydroxy acids) are easily processed into a variety of
additional application-specific form factors such as micro-[6,7] and nanoparticles,[8,9] wafers/discs,[10] meshes,[11] foams,[12] and films.[13] Copolymers
consisting of lactic acid and glycolic acid are of particular interest
because varying the monomer composition allows for control of the
crystallinity, mechanical strength, and degradation rate.[14,15] Other approaches to alter these material properties, to facilitate
cell adhesion, or to improve drug diffusion kinetics include synthesizing
copolymers using functionalizable[16−18] or bioactive[19] comonomers and modifying the hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity
via changes in surface texture, morphology, and form factor (fibers
vs cast films) of the resulting material.Material surfaces
that exhibit extreme hydrophobicity or superhydrophobicity
possess an apparent contact angle of >150°. These surfaces
are
fabricated by introducing high surface roughness to a low-surface-energy
material in order to maintain a stable air–liquid–solid
interface that resists wetting.[20] Superhydrophobic
materials are commonly observed in nature, and synthetic analogues
have been developed that possess water-repellant, self-cleaning, and
drag-resistant surface properties.[21] From
a biomaterials perspective, these materials are being explored for
minimizing biofouling (e.g., reducing protein adsorption, cell adhesion,
and cell proliferation)[22−25] and for drug delivery applications,[26−29] including those that are triggered by ultrasound.[30] Synthetic superhydrophobic materials are fabricated using
various top-down and bottom-up approaches, such as micropatterning/microtexturing,[31] electrospraying,[32,33] solvent-induced
polymer crystallization,[34] and electrospinning.[21,35,36] In electrospinning, a continuous
fiber jet is ejected from the needle tip of a syringe containing a
polymer solution, which is driven by the balancing of surface tension
and electrostatic (repulsive) forces under an applied high voltage.
The electrospinning approach to constructing superhydrophobic materials
is particularly attractive because it results in nano- or microfiber
meshes with high surface areas, porosity, and surface roughness while
also providing mechanical integrity and three-dimensionality.For controlled drug delivery applications, the entrapped air in
superhydrophobic three-dimensional materials acts as a metastable
barrier to water infiltration and controls drug release.[27−29] Thus, the development of these materials for this application requires
not only tuning the rate of drug delivery via the metastable state
but also controlling their chemical, physical, and mechanical properties.
Previous work on superhydrophobic drug eluting electrospun meshes
used poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) as the major polymer constitutent.
PCL is a hydrophobic polyester that degrades slowly in the human body
(∼2 to 3 years) compared to that of other biodegradable polyesters
such as PLGA (4 to 5 months for the 75:25 copolymer, for example).[37,38] In addition to a difference in degradation rate, PCL and PLGA differ
in their degree of cystallinity: PCL is a semicrystalline polymer,
whereas PLGA is amorphous; they also differ in mechanical properties.[38] Therefore, the goal of this study is to fabricate
superhydrophobic electrospun meshes from PLGA doped with a family
of new biodegradable hydrophobic poly(ester carbonate) copolymers
to assess the relationships between copolymer composition, percent
doping, fiber size, and wettability, and to provide a broad-based
strategy for the design and fabrication of three-dimensional biodegradable
polymer meshes as superhydrophobic biomaterials.
Experimental
Section
Synthesis (Scheme 1)
All reagents
were used as received without further purification or modification,
and the complete synthetic details and materials can be found in the Supporting Information. Briefly, the co-monomer,
5-benzyloxy-1,3-dioxan-2-one, was synthesized according to a literature
procedure and recrystallized twice from dichloromethane/ether prior
to use.[29] Polymerization was carried out
on a 10 mmol overall scale at 140 °C under a nitrogen atmosphere
in a tin-catalyzed ring-opening polymerization to afford poly(d,l-lactide-co-5-benzyloxy-1,3-dioxan-2-one)
(polymer 1). 1H NMR integrations of the lactide
and benzyl methylene protons were compared to determine copolymer
composition. The benzyl protecting group of polymer 1 was subsequently deprotected using Pd/C hydrogenolysis to afford
poly(d,l-lactide-co-5-hydroxy-1,3-dioxan-2-one)
(polymer 2). Lastly, pendant hydrophobic side chains
of either stearic acid or 2H,2H,3H,3H-perfluorononanoic acid were attached
to the free hydroxyl of polymer 2 in a DCC coupling reaction.
The solution was then filtered, concentrated, and precipitated into
methanol to afford poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycerol monostearate) and poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycerol-perfluorononanoate) (polymers 3a PLA–PGC18 and 3b PLA–PGC13F, respectively). The copolymer ratio was varied between
60:40 and 90:10 (PLA:PGC).
Instrumentation
1H and 13C NMR
spectra were recorded at 93.94 kG (1H, 400 MHz; 13C, 100 MHz) at ambient temperature. Proton chemical shifts are expressed
in parts per million (ppm) relative to the residual proton solvent
resonance: CDCl3 δ = 7.24. For 13C spectra,
the centerline of the solvent signal was used as internal reference:
CDCl3 δ = 77.16. Thermal analysis of copolymers was
performed using a Q100 differential scanning calorimeter (TA Instruments,
DE, USA). Thermal traces were recorded for three steps: (1) heating
to 225 °C at 10 °C/min, (2) cooling to −75 °C
at 5 °C/min, and (3) heating to 225 °C at 10 °C/min.
The second heating step (step 3) was used to identify phase and/or
glass transition temperatures of the polymers. Mesh topography and
fiber morphology were characterized using a Supra V55 (Carl Zeiss,
Germany) field-emission scanning electron microscope operated at 2
kV. The static, advancing, and receding apparent water contact angle
measurements were performed using a DSA100 (Kruss, NC, USA) to assess
mesh wettability, and droplet (4 μL, 10) contact angles were calculated using the sessile
drop (static) and T-2 (advancing and receding) fit methods. Mechanical
analysis of the meshes was performed using a 5848 Microtester (Instron,
MA, USA) in accordance with ASTM standard D882 for thin plastic sheeting,
using a constant strain rate of 0.05/s.
Electrospinning
PLGA served as the major constituent
of the polymer blends due to its high molecular weight and consequent
high viscosity to afford chain entanglements and hence the ability
to be efficiently electrospun. The synthesized copolymers, PLA–PGC18 (90:10), PLA–PGC18 (60:40), PLA–PGC13F (60:40), and PLA–PGC-OH, were used as PLGA dopants
for the electrospinning. All polymers were dissolved in a mixture
of THF/DMF (7:3) and thoroughly mixed before loading into a 15 mL
glass syringe. The syringe was placed into a syringe pump and immediately
electrospun from the tip of a 20G blunt needle at 3 mL/h, 7.5–15
kV. The resulting fiber jet was collected onto a grounded rotating
and translating aluminum drum to collect a large mesh of uniform thickness
(300 μm). Meshes were allowed to air dry at room temperature
overnight before performing subsequent characterization.
In
Vivo Foreign Body Response in Mice
The animal experimental
protocol was approved by the Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee of Dana Farber Cancer Institute and
Boston University. The biocompatibility of the undoped PLGA, PLGA
+ 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40), and PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC13F (60:40) meshes was assessed in C57BL/6 female mice (Jackson
Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME). To test whether surface topography impacted
biocompatibility (i.e., fibrous capsule thickness and foreign body
reaction), smooth films of corresponding composition (undoped PLGA
and PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40)) were prepared
from their mesh counterparts by heating until the fibers coalesced
into a homogeneous, viscous transparent film that hardened upon cooling.
The skin of the mice was shaved and aseptically prepared followed
by a 0.5 cm incision that was made under isoflurane (1.0–1.5%)
inhalation anesthesia. A subcutaneous pocket was made by blunt dissection.
Films and meshes were cut to 0.6 × 0.6 cm2 rectangles,
sterilized by ultraviolet irradiation, and then randomly implanted
on the upper or lower back of C57BL/6 female mice such that each mouse
received two different film/mesh types. After closure of the incision
with 5-0 polypropylene sutures, mice were monitored until full recovery
from anesthesia. After 4 weeks postimplantation, the meshes and surrounding
tissue were carefully harvested after euthanasia, and cross-sections
were prepared by paraffin embedding and H&E staining. Optical
microscopy was performed on an Olympus BX41 microscope with an attached
Olympus DP70 digital camera using an automated exposure setup.
Results
and Discussion
A family of new aliphatic poly(ester carbonates),
poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycerol monostearate),
was
synthesized neat and in good conversion (∼90%) from the racemic
lactide monomer and 5-benzyloxy-1,3-dioxan-2-one at 140 °C using
a tin-catalyzed ring-opening polymerization (Scheme 1). Monomer composition was varied to produce copolymers with
10, 20, 30, and 40 mol percent glycerol carbonate (GC), which was
confirmed using 1H NMR analysis by comparing peak integrations
between the benzyl protecting group (−CH2) of GC
and the lactide backbone (−CH2). Subsequent deprotection
using Pd/C-catalyzed hydrogenolysis afforded a secondary alcohol that
was coupled to stearic acid using a standard DCC procedure in order
to enhance hydrophobicity (∼90% yield).
Scheme 1
Synthesis of Poly(ester carbonate) Copolymers
Molecular weights
of these C18-derivatized polymers
were relatively similar (10–17 kg/mol, Mw/Mn ∼1.5), which facilitated
comparison of thermal properties using differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC). At low C18 content (i.e., PLA–PGC18 (90:10)), the copolymer is amorphous, having a glass transition
(Tg) of 28 °C and no melting or crystallization
event. Crystallinity increases as the C18 content increases
from 20 to 40% (Table 1), as evidenced by the
appearance of crystallization and melting peaks and increasing heats
of fusion. Melting transitions (Tm) for
these polymers also increased with increasing C18 content,
which is likely due to the close, ordered packing of the hydrocarbon
chains within the polymer and is partially supported by the observation
that the free hydroxyl [PLA-OH (60:40)] copolymer is amorphous, Tg= −7 °C (see Supporting Information).
Table 1
Composition
and Properties of Synthesized
Copolymers
copolymer
conversion (%)
lactidea
glycerola
Mn (g/mol)b
Mw/Mn
Tg (°C)c
Tm (°C)
Tc (°C)
ΔHf (J/g)
PLA–PGC18 (90:10)
92
89
11
12 512
1.5
28
PLA–PGC18 (80:20)
96
78
23
10 979
1.5
17
33
11
3.0
PLA–PGC18 (70:30)
90
66
34
17 305
1.5
d
40
17
23
PLA–PGC18 (60:40)
86
54
47
13 226
1.6
d
43
27
32
Mole %.
As determined by
size-exclusion
chromatography (THF, 1.0 mL/min); Mn =
number-average molecular weight; Mw/Mn = dispersity.
No Tg was
observed for these semicrystalline polymers over the temperature
range from −75 to 225 °C.
Mole %.As determined by
size-exclusion
chromatography (THF, 1.0 mL/min); Mn =
number-average molecular weight; Mw/Mn = dispersity.Tg =
glass transition temperature; Tm = melting
temperature; Tc = crystallization temperature;
ΔHf = heat of fusion.No Tg was
observed for these semicrystalline polymers over the temperature
range from −75 to 225 °C.Electrospinning is a versatile polymer processing
method by which
nonwoven nano- and microfiber meshes with high surface area and surface
roughness are prepared from polymer melts,[39] solutions,[40] blends,[41] immiscible mixtures,[42] emulsions,[43] and even from low-molecular-weight supramolecular
assemblies.[44] We therefore hypothesized
that electrospinning THF/DMF solutions (7:3) of PLGA 75:25 (MW = 129
kg/mol, Mw/Mn = 1.6) doped with varying amounts of PLA–PGC18 copolymers will alter the hydrophobicity of the material and, through
optimization, will afford three-dimensional microfiber meshes with
superhydrophobic characteristics. Specifically, we investigated how
the C18 content of the PLA–PGC18 copolymer,
dopant concentration, and fiber size of electrospun meshes affected
wettability.Electrospinning was accomplished by loading these
polymer solutions
into a syringe configured in a syringe pump (Q =
3.0 mL/h) and applying a high voltage to the tip of the syringe needle
as the solution was collected onto a rotating drum. Fiber size was
controlled by varying the total polymer concentration of the solutions:
30 wt % solutions resulted in small (2.5–3.5 μm) diameter
fibers, whereas 40 wt % solutions resulted in large (6.5–7.5
μm) fibers (Figure 1). The polymer dopants
selected for electrospinning with PLGA were the PLA–PGC18 (90:10) and PLA–PGC18 (60:40) copolymers,
and SEM images of all of the meshes can be found in Figures 1, S1, S2, and S3. We
hypothesized that increasing copolymer composition (i.e., C18 content) would raise the apparent water contact angle to afford
superhydrophobic meshes. The apparent advancing and receding water
contact angles on large-fiber electrospun pure PLGA meshes were ∼110
and 81°, and the contact angle increased as fiber size was reduced
or as copolymer doping was increased such that advancing contact angles
as high as ∼162° (and receding as high as 145°) were
obtained for small-fiber PLGA doped with 30% PLA–C18 (60:40) (Figures 1 and 2; see Figure S4 for the static contact
angles). The difference between the values (i.e., hysteresis) for
the advancing and receding contact angles decreased once the materials
transitioned from hydrophobic to superhydrophobic. Reducing the fiber
diameter enhanced mesh hydrophobicity (i.e., greater apparent advancing
and static water contact angles) by decreasing the polymer surface
fill fraction and increasing the air fraction exposed at the surface.
Likewise, minimizing the mesh surface roughness via melting the meshes
into films also dramatically reduced the water contact angles to 100°
or lower for the respective compositions (see Supporting Information Figure S5). The degree of hydrophobicity
was also dependent on dopantcopolymer composition, with an increase
in hydrophobicity as the lactide–C18 ratio increased
(Figure 2). In contrast, electrospun meshes
doped with 30% of the free hydroxyl copolymerPLA–PGC-OH (60:40)
did not appreciably enhance mesh hydrophobicity (WCA ≈ 120
± 4° for 2.5–3.5 μm fibers; Figure S3),
confirming that the enhancement in hydrophobicity was due to the C18 moiety. The fibers within these meshes were relatively smooth
and randomly oriented, as revealed by scanning electron microscopy.
However, in the extreme case of small fibers doped with 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40), a tertiary web-like structure developed on the
fiber surface, adding to the overall surface roughness and resulting
in a high apparent contact angle (Figure 3b).
Figure 1
Superhydrophobic
PLGA mesh doped with 30% PLA−PGC18 (60:40): (a)
photograph of a mesh, (b) water droplet on a mesh surface
showing a contact angle of 160°, and (c) low-magnification SEM
of a mesh (scale bar = 10 μm). (d) Illustration of the bulk
superhydrophobicity of the mesh, where a nonwetted mesh floats on
water (colored green with dye to increase contrast), whereas an ethanol-wetted
mesh placed in water sinks to the bottom. Dry and wetted meshes removed
from the water are white and green, respectively (scale bar = 1 cm).
Figure 2
Influence of fiber size, copolymer dopant species, and
percent
doping on the apparent advancing (dark shade) and receding (light
shade) water contact angles of PLGA-based microfiber meshes (PLGA,
white; PLA-PGC18 (90:10), blue; PLA–PGC18 (60:40), orange). Error
bars represent standard deviation (n = 10).
Figure 3
(a) Contact
angle as a function of droplet surface tension for
PLGA meshes doped with 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40) and
PLA–PGC13F (60:40). Fiber size was 2.5–3.5
μm for both meshes (scale bar = 1 μm; error bars represent
standard deviation for 10 droplet measurements). (b) High-magnification
SEM of PLGA mesh doped with 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40)
showing high surface roughness compared to (c) fibers fabricated from
PLGA doped with 30% PLA–PGC13F (60:40), which have
smooth fibers.
Superhydrophobic
PLGA mesh doped with 30% PLA−PGC18 (60:40): (a)
photograph of a mesh, (b) water droplet on a mesh surface
showing a contact angle of 160°, and (c) low-magnification SEM
of a mesh (scale bar = 10 μm). (d) Illustration of the bulk
superhydrophobicity of the mesh, where a nonwetted mesh floats on
water (colored green with dye to increase contrast), whereas an ethanol-wetted
mesh placed in water sinks to the bottom. Dry and wetted meshes removed
from the water are white and green, respectively (scale bar = 1 cm).Doped PLGA meshes were also assessed
for cytotoxicity and biodegradability.
Co-incubation of PLGA or 30% doped meshes with NIH/3T3 cells showed
no loss of viability (viability > 95%, see Figure S6)
after
24 h, as determined using the MTS colorimetric viability assay and
compared to that of the untreated controls. The degradation half-life
(in PBS at 37 °C) of the meshes occurred around 20–25
weeks (see Figure S7). Differences in degradation after 25 weeks were
noted. For example, the 30% doped PLA–PGC18 (60:40)
meshes were more resistant to degradation, losing only ∼35–40%
of their mass, compared to ∼65–75% mass lost for pure
PLGA meshes, after 25 weeks. The reduced hydrolytic degradation of
PLA–PGC18 doped PLGA meshes may be due to the greater
degree of crystallinity of the PLA–PGC18 copolymer
(Table 1) and the greater mole fraction of
PGC18 monomer units (i.e., greater number of carbonate
linkages and hydrophobic C18 pendant groups) in these meshes.
The pendent C18 is grafted to the polymer backbone by a
hydrolzyable ester linkage, providing a mechanism for polymer degradation.
This result is consistent with the literature reports that observed
slower degradation rates of PLGA samples having higher degrees of
crystallinity[45] and that polycarbonates,
in general, degrade slower than polyesters.[46] However, because the overall molar percentage of PGC18 monomers was 3× lower in the 10% doped meshes and even lower
for PLA–PGC18 (90:10) doped meshes, there were no
discernible differences in the degradation trends for the other mesh
compositions.Influence of fiber size, copolymer dopant species, and
percent
doping on the apparent advancing (dark shade) and receding (light
shade) water contact angles of PLGA-based microfiber meshes (PLGA,
white; PLA-PGC18 (90:10), blue; PLA–PGC18 (60:40), orange). Error
bars represent standard deviation (n = 10).In addition to generating superhydrophobic
meshes through the addition
of PLA–PGC18 copolymer dopants to PLGA, we investigated
whether grafting other hydrophobic moieties on the polymer backbone
can impart superhydrophobicity, such as a perfluoroalkyl pendant chain.
A poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycerol-2-2H,2H,3H,3H-perfluorononanoate) [PLA–PGC13F (60:40)] copolymer
was therefore synthesized in a similar manner as that of PLA–PGC18 and subsequently doped into a solution of PLGA and electrospun.
At a 30% doping level, these perfluoroalkyl doped microfiber (2.5–3.5
μm; see Figures 3 and S3) meshes exhibited contact angles of ∼148°,
which is lower than that observed with the C18 copolymer
analogue (∼160°). We attribute the higher pure water contact
angle for the PLA–PGC18 (60:40) doped PLGA mesh
to the greater surface roughness present on these fibers compared
to those fibers in the PLA–PGC13F (60:40) doped
PLGA mesh (Figure 3).Considering the
role of surface tension and surface energy on the
wettability of superhydrophobic materials, we further explored wettability
parameters by varying the surface tension of water by creating ethanol–water
mixtures of known surface tension[47] and
measuring the contact angle of these droplets on the most superhydrophobic
30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40) and PLA–PGC13F (60:40) doped PLGA meshes. Despite having a higher apparent pure
water contact angle, the PLA–PGC18 doped PLGA mesh
was unable to support droplets with surface tensions below 36 mN/m,
whereas the PLA–PGC13F doped PLGA mesh maintained
droplets with surface tensions as low as 23 mN/m (Figure 3). A possible explanation
for why the PLA–PGC13F doped PLGA mesh can support
a lower surface tension liquid compared to that of the PLA–PGC18 doped PLGA mesh is that the smooth conformal coating present
on the PGC13F doped PLGA fibers prevents ethanol absorption
by the polylactic acid better than that of the rough porous coating
present in the PLA–PGC18 doped PLGA meshes.(a) Contact
angle as a function of droplet surface tension for
PLGA meshes doped with 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40) and
PLA–PGC13F (60:40). Fiber size was 2.5–3.5
μm for both meshes (scale bar = 1 μm; error bars represent
standard deviation for 10 droplet measurements). (b) High-magnification
SEM of PLGA mesh doped with 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40)
showing high surface roughness compared to (c) fibers fabricated from
PLGA doped with 30% PLA–PGC13F (60:40), which have
smooth fibers.Next, uniaxial tensile
testing on the meshes was performed to determine
the effect of PLA–PGC18 copolymer dopant and/or
fiber size on the mechanical properties (elastic modulus, ultimate
tensile strength, and strain at failure) of the PLGA meshes (Table 2). A trend was observed of decreasing stiffness
and strength with increased doping and reduced fiber size. However,
this was not the case for meshes doped with 30% PLA–PGC18 (90:10), as this formulation showed enhanced mechanical
strength and stiffness compared to that of undoped PLGA meshes, and
warrants further study. This composition also had a 20–25°
increase in contact angle compared to that of PLGA and may be an appropriate
material for providing enhanced hydrophobicity of PLGA without sacrificing
mechanical strength, such as for surgical buttressing materials.
Table 2
Mechanical Properties of Doped Electrospun
PLGA Meshes
copolymer dopant
doping %
fiber sizea
E (MPa)b
UTS
(MPa)c
ε (break)d (%)
PLA–PGC18 (90:10)
10
large
166.2 ± 20
6.3 ± 0.3
12
10
small
139.4 ± 15
2.9 ± 0.3
30
large
90.9 ± 3.4
2.4 ± 0.6
30
small
90.4 ± 5.5
3.0 ± 0.1
PLA–PGC18 (60:40)
10
large
40.3 ± 8.9
0.8 ± 0.1
1.9
10
small
46.5 ± 11
1.7 ± 0.2
31
30
large
10.1 ± 4.4
0.3 ± 0.1
8.7
30
small
1.1 ± 0.4
0.1 ± 0.01
PLGA (undoped)
0
large
84.9 ± 15
2.6 ± 0.4
0
small
63.6 ± 11
2.5 ± 0.4
Large fibers: 6.5–7.5 μm;
small fibers: 2.5–3.5 μm.
Elastic modulus.
Ultimate tensile strength.
Strain at failure.
Large fibers: 6.5–7.5 μm;
small fibers: 2.5–3.5 μm.Elastic modulus.Ultimate tensile strength.Strain at failure.The in vivo biocompatibility and foreign body
reaction to electrospun meshes were assessed 4 weeks after subcutaneous
implantation in mice (Figures 4 and 5). A separate group of meshes was melted to eliminate
surface roughness and therefore act as a nonsuperhydrophobic control
with identical polymer composition. In general, meshes experienced
a greater degree of tissue ingrowth (arrows) by macrophages and fibroblasts
compared to films, as may be expected given the greater degree of
porosity. Nonetheless, all meshes and films (labeled with arrowheads)
were well-tolerated in mice and showed minimal signs of fibrous encapsulation
(arrows). Fibrous encapsulation is characteristic of a foreign body
response to an implanted device.[48] A small
number of macrophages are indeed present at 4 weeks after implantation
as part of a mild inflammatory reaction. This is to be expected as
part of the normal host response to an implanted material that persists
to this time point. The foreign body response to the superhydrophobic
meshes (Figure 4) was similar to that of implanted
PLGA meshes and smooth (i.e., nonsuperhydrophobic) PLGA films doped
with 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40) (Figure 5). Furthermore, these results are similar to electrospun PCL
meshes implanted in rats performed by Cao et al.[49] Their study also examined the effect of fiber orientation
(i.e., random or aligned) on fibrous capsule thickness and foreign
body giant cell count, and they concluded that the fibrous architecture
was capable of minimizing the foreign body response compared to that
of smooth films and that thinner fibrous capsules were observed for
the aligned fiber meshes compared to that of the meshes with randomly
oriented fibers.
Figure 4
Histological (H&E) specimens of harvested subcutaneous
mouse
tissue surrounding implanted superhydrophobic meshes after 4 weeks.
Superhydrophobic PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC18(60:40) mesh
at (a) 10× and (b) 40× magnifications. Superhydrophobic
PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC13F (60:40) mesh at (c) 10×
and (d) 40× magnifications.
Figure 5
Histological (H&E) specimens of harvested subcutaneous mouse
tissue surrounding implanted nonsuperhydrophobic meshes and films
after 4 weeks. PLGA mesh at (a) 10× and (b) 40× magnifications.
PLGA film at (c) 10× and (d) 40× manifications. Nonsuperhydrophobic
PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40) film/melted mesh at
(e) 10× and (f) 40× magnifications.
Histological (H&E) specimens of harvested subcutaneous
mouse
tissue surrounding implanted superhydrophobic meshes after 4 weeks.
Superhydrophobic PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC18(60:40) mesh
at (a) 10× and (b) 40× magnifications. Superhydrophobic
PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC13F (60:40) mesh at (c) 10×
and (d) 40× magnifications.Histological (H&E) specimens of harvested subcutaneous mouse
tissue surrounding implanted nonsuperhydrophobic meshes and films
after 4 weeks. PLGA mesh at (a) 10× and (b) 40× magnifications.
PLGA film at (c) 10× and (d) 40× manifications. Nonsuperhydrophobic
PLGA + 30% PLA–PGC18 (60:40) film/melted mesh at
(e) 10× and (f) 40× magnifications.
Conclusions
A series of polyester-carbonate copolymers based
on d,l-lactide and glycerol is synthesized in good
yield, with molecular
weights of approximately 15 kg/mol. The ratio of glycerol to lactic
acid is varied from 10 to 40%, and the pendant free hydroxyl on glycerol
is subsequently functionalized with stearic acid to impart additional
hydrophobicity to the copolymer (PLA–PGC18). When
these copolymers are added to a solution of PLGA at varying doping
concentrations and the resulting mixture is electrospun, nonwoven
microfiber meshes are fabricated with varying degrees of hydrophobicity.
Mesh wettability is controlled through selection of fiber size, the
amount of copolymer dopant added, and/or the lactide:C18 copolymer ratio. Hydrophobicity, as measured by apparent advancing
contact angle, varied from of ∼110° for PLGA electrospun
7 μm fiber meshes to in excess of 160° for small-fiber
meshes containing 30 wt % PLA–PGC18 (60:40). The
degradation rate for the PLGA meshes doped with PLA–PGC18 (60:40) is slower than that for the PLGA meshes, and this
is likely due to the greater degree of crystallinity, increased hydrophobicity
(i.e., C18), and the backbone carbonate linkages present
within this polymeric mesh. In order to determine if this approach
is generalizable, we replaced stearic acid with a perfluoroalkyl-based
carboxylic acid, which is structurally and chemically different. The
surface of the fibers ffrom the PLA−PGC13F doped
PLGA meshes are smoother than those from the PLA−PGC18 doped PLGA and thus these fluorinated meshes possess a lower apparent
contact angle of ∼148°. The meshes fabricated in this
work are noncytotoxic, as determined using the NIH/3T3 cell assay,
and they do not elicit an adverse response when implanted in vivo. Given the potential toxicity of fluorinated polymers
and their breakdown products,[50] additional in vivo studies over a longer duration are warranted for
the perfluoroalkyl-grafted copolymer meshes prior to any biomedical
use.In summary, a robust and facile strategy to electrospin
PLGA-based
meshes is reported where the hydrophobicity of the mesh is tuned by
choice of the polymer dopant, dopant concentration, and fiber size.
Studies are ongoing to evaluate these meshes, composed of known biodegradable,
biocompatible aliphatic polyesters and poly(ester carbonate)s, for
drug delivery applications, where the surface and bulk properties
are of particular importance for controlling drug release and cell/tissue
integration, such as in a drug-eluting buttressing device that is
implanted during surgical resection of early stage cancer.
Authors: Jin Soo Lee; Tae Kun An; Gang Soo Chae; Je Kyo Jeong; Sun Hang Cho; Hai Bang Lee; Gilson Khang Journal: Eur J Pharm Biopharm Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.571
Authors: Benjamin Y S Ong; Sudhir H Ranganath; Lai Yeng Lee; Fan Lu; How-Sung Lee; Nikolaos V Sahinidis; Chi-Hwa Wang Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Stefan T Yohe; Jonathan A Kopechek; Tyrone M Porter; Yolonda L Colson; Mark W Grinstaff Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Harshit Agarwal; La'Darious J Quinn; Sahana C Walter; Thomas J Polaske; Douglas H Chang; Sean P Palecek; Helen E Blackwell; David M Lynn Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 10.383