| Literature DB >> 26473937 |
Elie Zakhem1,2, Khalil N Bitar3,4,5.
Abstract
Massive resections of segments of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract lead to intestinal discontinuity. Functional tubular replacements are needed. Different scaffolds were designed for intestinal tissue engineering application. However, none of the studies have evaluated the mechanical properties of the scaffolds. We have previously shown the biocompatibility of chitosan as a natural material in intestinal tissue engineering. Our scaffolds demonstrated weak mechanical properties. In this study, we enhanced the mechanical strength of the scaffolds with the use of chitosan fibers. Chitosan fibers were circumferentially-aligned around the tubular chitosan scaffolds either from the luminal side or from the outer side or both. Tensile strength, tensile strain, and Young's modulus were significantly increased in the scaffolds with fibers when compared with scaffolds without fibers. Burst pressure was also increased. The biocompatibility of the scaffolds was maintained as demonstrated by the adhesion of smooth muscle cells around the different kinds of scaffolds. The chitosan scaffolds with fibers provided a better candidate for intestinal tissue engineering. The novelty of this study was in the design of the fibers in a specific alignment and their incorporation within the scaffolds.Entities:
Keywords: chitosan; extrusion/gelation; fibers; freeze/dry; mechanical properties; tubular scaffold
Year: 2015 PMID: 26473937 PMCID: PMC4695906 DOI: 10.3390/jfb6040999
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Funct Biomater ISSN: 2079-4983
Figure 1Representative images of the tubular scaffold (A) without fibers; (B) with inner fibers; (C) with outer fibers; and (D) with inner and outer fibers (fiber sandwiched scaffold). (E) Circumferentially aligned chitosan fibers were engineered using the extrusion/gelation method. (F) The mold for scaffolds consisted of an outer tube and an inner tube to create the lumen of the scaffold.
Figure 2Representative SEM images of the tubular scaffold (A) without fibers; (B) the fibers; (C) scaffold with inner fibers; (D) scaffold with outer fibers; and (E) with inner and outer fibers.
Figure 3SEM of the different scaffolds shows the morphology of the pores. (A) scaffold without fibers; (B) scaffold with inner fibers; (C) scaffold with outer fibers and (D) fiber sandwiched scaffold.
Summary of the mechanical properties of the different kinds of scaffolds.
| Samples | Tensile Stress (MPa) | Elongation at Break (%) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Burst Pressure (mmHg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native intestine | 0.076 ± 0.007 | 230 ± 13 | 0.122 ± 0.01 | – |
| Scaffolds without fibers | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 124 ± 6 | 0.022 ± 0.004 | 715 ± 38 |
| Scaffolds with inner fibers | 0.065 ± 0.008 | 262 ± 35 | 0.117 ± 0.007 | 1327 ± 75 |
| Scaffolds with outer fibers | 0.071 ± 0.01 | 137 ± 10 | 0.101 ± 0.019 | 1276 ± 75 |
| Fiber sandwiched scaffolds | 0.243 ± 0.033 | 114 ± 9 | 0.392 ± 0.089 | – |
Figure 4Tensile properties of the different kinds of scaffolds compared to native intestine: (A) Stress-strain curve; (B) Tensile stress; (C) Tensile strain at break, and (D) Young’s modulus.
Figure 5Burst pressure strength of different kinds of scaffolds.
Figure 6Different kinds of scaffolds were seeded with aligned smooth muscle sheets. Tissues stained positive for α-smooth muscle actin, indicating the maintenance of smooth muscle phenotype around all scaffolds. DAPI staining demonstrated maintenance of alignment of the cells around the scaffolds. (A) Scaffolds without fibers; (B) scaffolds with inner fibers; (C) scaffolds with outer fibers; and (D) fiber-sandwiched scaffolds. Scale bars 100 µm.