S Barr1, E W Hill2, A Bayat3. 1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, United Kingdom; Department of Computer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Computer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom. 3. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, United Kingdom; Bioengineering Research Group, School of Materials, Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: ardeshir.bayat@manchester.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of women undergo breast implantation for cosmetic and reconstructive purposes. Contracture of the fibrous capsule, which encases the implant leads to significant pain and reoperation. Texture, wettability and the cellular reaction to implant surfaces are poorly understood determinants of implant biocompatibility. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in-vitro characteristics of a range of commercial available implants using a macrophage based assay of implant biocompatibility and a quantitative assessment of wettability and texture. METHODS: Thirteen commercially available surfaces were subjected to wettability and texture characterisation using scanning and laser confocal microscopy. THP-1 macrophages were cultured on their surfaces and assessed using Integrin αV immunocytochemistry, SEM and RT-PCR for the expression of TNF-Alpha, IL-6, IL-10 and a cytokine array for the production of TNF-alpha, IL-10, IL-1RA and IL1β; important indicators of inflammation and macrophage polarization. RESULTS: Textured surfaces can be accurately sub-categorized dependent upon roughness and re-entrant features into four main types (macro, micro, meso and nano-textured surfaces). Significant (P < 0.0001) differences in implant hydrophobicity and texture exist. Certain surfaces promoted poor macrophage polarization and an innate potential to foster a proinflammatory response. A subgroup analysis showed that texture had a variable effect on markers of inflammation in these surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a classification of implant surfaces based on roughness and present a macrophage based assay of breast implant biocompatibility with a quantitative assessment of implant wettability and texture. The breast implant surface-cell interaction is variable and sufficient to alter healing response and capsular contracture fate in-vivo.
PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of women undergo breast implantation for cosmetic and reconstructive purposes. Contracture of the fibrous capsule, which encases the implant leads to significant pain and reoperation. Texture, wettability and the cellular reaction to implant surfaces are poorly understood determinants of implant biocompatibility. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in-vitro characteristics of a range of commercial available implants using a macrophage based assay of implant biocompatibility and a quantitative assessment of wettability and texture. METHODS: Thirteen commercially available surfaces were subjected to wettability and texture characterisation using scanning and laser confocal microscopy. THP-1 macrophages were cultured on their surfaces and assessed using Integrin αV immunocytochemistry, SEM and RT-PCR for the expression of TNF-Alpha, IL-6, IL-10 and a cytokine array for the production of TNF-alpha, IL-10, IL-1RA and IL1β; important indicators of inflammation and macrophage polarization. RESULTS: Textured surfaces can be accurately sub-categorized dependent upon roughness and re-entrant features into four main types (macro, micro, meso and nano-textured surfaces). Significant (P < 0.0001) differences in implant hydrophobicity and texture exist. Certain surfaces promoted poor macrophage polarization and an innate potential to foster a proinflammatory response. A subgroup analysis showed that texture had a variable effect on markers of inflammation in these surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a classification of implant surfaces based on roughness and present a macrophage based assay of breast implant biocompatibility with a quantitative assessment of implant wettability and texture. The breast implant surface-cell interaction is variable and sufficient to alter healing response and capsular contracture fate in-vivo.
Authors: Ronen Schuster; Sander van Putten; Nina Noskovicova; Maya Ezzo; Anne Koehler; Stellar Boo; Nuno M Coelho; David Griggs; Peter Ruminski; Christopher A McCulloch; Boris Hinz Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Giuseppe Cappellano; Christian Ploner; Susanne Lobenwein; Sieghart Sopper; Paul Hoertnagl; Christina Mayerl; Nikolaus Wick; Gerhard Pierer; Georg Wick; Dolores Wolfram Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark R Magnusson; Tony Connell; Michael Miroshnik; Craig Layt; Mark Ashton; Anand K Deva; Hamish Farrow; Janek Januszkiewicz Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-05-01
Authors: Garth A James; Laura Boegli; John Hancock; Lisa Bowersock; Albert Parker; Brian M Kinney Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 2.326