| Literature DB >> 30091512 |
Timur Fatkhudinov1,2, Larisa Tsedik3, Irina Arutyunyan1,4, Anastasia Lokhonina1,4, Andrey Makarov1,5, Aleksey Korshunov1, Andrey Elchaninov1,5, Evgeniya Kananykhina1,4, Olesya Vasyukova1,4, Natalia Usman1, Elena Uvarova1, Vladimir Chuprynin1, Irina Eremina2, Dmitry Degtyarev1, Gennady Sukhikh1.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate physical, mechanical, and biological properties of the polydioxanone (PDO) monofilament meshes and polyglycolide (PGA) polyfilament meshes in comparison with Permacol® implants. In rat experimental model, a 1.5 × 2.0 cm defect in abdominal wall was reconstructed by using the Permacol surgical implant or knitted meshes produced from either PDO monofilament, or PGA multifilament. The implant sites were assessed for the tensile strength and the extents of material resorption, host inflammatory response and host tissue replacement on days 3, 10, 30, or 60 after the surgery. The PDO and PGA meshes were rapidly pervaded by the host connective tissue with elements of skeletal muscle histogenesis. The degree of adhesions was significantly higher in the Permacol group. All of the prostheses underwent resorption, which correlated with gradual decreases in the overall tensile strength of the site and the Col1a1 gene expression level. Elevated expression of Fgf2 gene maintained longer in the PDO group, and the Mmp9 gene expression level in this group was higher than in the other groups. Gene expression levels of inflammatory cytokines were higher in the Permacol group. The foreign body giant cell numbers were lower in the PDO and Permacol groups than in the PGA group. Minimal macrophage infiltration with predominance of M2 cells was observed in the PDO group. Overall, the PDO prosthesis turned out to be significantly better than the PGA or Permacol prostheses by a number of indicators of biocompatibility and efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: animal model; biocompatibility/soft tissue; cell-material interactions; cytokines; resorbable mesh
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30091512 PMCID: PMC6585936 DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater ISSN: 1552-4973 Impact factor: 3.368
PCR Primer Structures and Targets Definition
| Target Symbol | Direction | Sequence (5′ to 3′) | NCBI Ref Seq | Target Definition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Forw | CCAAGCGGCTCTACTGCAA | NM_019305.2 |
|
| Rev | AGCCGTCCATCTTCCTTCATAG | |||
|
| Forw | CTGGCGCTTCAGGTCCAATG | NM_053304.1 |
|
| Rev | AGACCTCGGGGACCCATCT | |||
|
| Forw | ATGGTTTCTGCCCCAGTGAG | NM_031055.1 |
|
| Rev | CACCAGCGATAACCATCCGA | |||
|
| Forw | CAGACAGCTTTCTGCAACTC | NM_053819.1 |
|
| Rev | CACAGCGTCGAATCCTTTGA | |||
|
| Forw | CCACCACGCTCTTCTGTCTA | NM_012675.3 |
|
| Rev | GCTACGGGCTTGTCACTCG | |||
|
| Forw | CCGCAACAACGCAATCTATG | NM_021578.2 |
|
| Rev | AGCCCTGTATTCCGTCTCCTT | |||
|
| Forw | CTGTCTGACCCATGTGAGCT | NM_031512.2 |
|
| Rev | ACTCCACTTTGGTCTTGACTT | |||
|
| Forw | ATGTAACGACAGCCCTCTGA | NM_201270.1 |
|
| Rev | AGCACGGAGGTACATCACG | |||
|
| Forw | TACATATGTTCTCAGGGAGAT | NM_012589.2 |
|
| Rev | GGTAGAAACGGAACTCCAG | |||
|
| Forw | GCCCAGAAATCAAGGAGCAT | NM_012854.2 |
|
| Rev | TGAGTGTCACGTAGGCTTCTA | |||
|
| Forw | GAGATTACTGCCCTGGCTCC | NM_031144.3 |
|
| Rev | GCTCAGTAACAGTCCGCCTA | |||
|
| Forw | CTCGCTCGGTGACCGTGAT | NM_012512.2 |
|
| Rev | GGACAGATCTGACATCTCGA | |||
|
| Forw | GCGAGATCCCGCTAACATCA | NM_017008.4 |
|
| Rev | CCCTTCCACGATGCCAAAGT |
Figure 1Mesh implants. Macroscopic optical images (left) and top‐view SEM micrographs (right) (a) showing the architecture of PDO monofilament and PGA polyfilament meshes. Scale bars are 500 and 50 μm. The in vitro cytotoxicity MTT assay (b) showing the optical density at λ = 570 nm in wells containing human MSCs incubated for 1, 2, or 5 days in the presence of the PDO or PGA yarns. Wells with the cells only (no yarns) were used as a control. The data are presented as average ± SD. The MTT assay was repeated three times; the experimental results correspond to zero cytotoxicity of the materials.
Characteristics of the Meshes
| Characteristics | PDO Mesh | PGA Mesh |
|---|---|---|
| Material | PDO | polyglycolic acid |
| Type of thread | Monofilament | Multifilament |
| Thread thickness, USP | 3‐0 | 3‐0 |
| Type of mesh | Woven | Woven |
| Shape of elements | Rectangular | Rectangular |
| Size of elements, mm | 2.0–2.5 | 2.0–2.5 |
| Tensile strength, MPa | 5.01 ± 0.72 | 8.76 ± 0.97 |
| Porosity, % | 85.8 | 82.8 |
| Microhardness, kgf/mm2 | 35.2 | 52.0 |
| Microhardness after hydrolytic degradation, kgf/mm2 | 28.2 | 17.8 |
| Size of mesh, mm | 15 × 20 | 15 × 20 |
| Expected resorption time, days | 170–250 | 60–90 |
Figure 2Biomechanical properties of the implants. Formation of abdominal adhesions (left) after mesh transplantation and quantification (right) of score of adhesion for PDO, PGA and Permacol groups (a). The degree of adhesions was significantly higher in the Permacol group than in the synthetic mesh groups. Quantification of implant material resorption (b) and tensile strength (c). The overall tensile strength of tissues at the surgical site decreased in all groups as long as the material was gradually resorbed, but the decrease was slower for the synthetic meshes than for Permacol. n = 6 per group at each time point. Values are expressed as average ± SD. * denotes significant difference (p < 0.05) between linked groups.
Figure 3Representative images of H&E staining on day 10, 30, and 60 after the transplantation showing the integration between tissue and different mesh material. Histological examination confirmed the better integration of synthetic mesh prostheses into host environments as compared to Permacol. Arrows indicate blood vessels. By day 60, in PDO and PGA groups all tissues contacting and penetrating the prosthesis were abundantly vascularized, whereas in the Permacol group blood vessels were found only at peripheral sites with the highest degree of resorption. “М” denotes “Mesh material”. Scale bars are 100 μm.
Figure 4Peri‐implant tissue remodeling. Representative images of IHC staining on day 60 after transplantation showing the localization of smooth muscle actin (green), troponin I (green) and type I collagen (green) (a). Cell nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). “М” denotes “Mesh material.” Scale bars are 50 μm. Relative expression levels of FGF2 and genes involved in extracellular matrix remodeling (b). Gene expression dynamics show that maximal rates of both production and remodeling of the matrix correspond to day 10, regardless of the type of prosthesis, but the PDO mesh transplantation is associated with accelerated maturation of the newly formed connective tissue. n = 6 per group at each time point. Values are expressed as average ± SD. * denotes significant difference (p < 0.05) between linked groups.
Figure 5Foreign‐body giant cell formation. Representative images of H&E staining on day 10, 30, and 60 after the transplantation showing the localization of foreign‐body giant cells next to implant material (a). Arrows indicate foreign‐body giant cells. “М” denotes “Mesh material”. Scale bars are 50 μm. Quantitative assessment of FBGCs and the FGBC nuclei numbers (b). FBGCs were significantly more abundant and multinucleated in the PGA group. FBGCs were counted in 20 fields of view at 400× magnification for each animal individually. Values are expressed as average ± SD. * denotes significant difference (p < 0.05) between linked groups.
Figure 6Inflammatory response of host tissues to the mesh implantation. Representative images of IHC staining on day 60 after surgery showing the localization of CD68+ cells CD206+ cells (green) (a). Macrophages are predominantly observed in the close vicinity of the prostheses. CD68 is a marker of total macrophage population and CD206 is a marker of alternatively activated macrophages exhibiting anti‐inflammatory functions. Cell nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). “М” denotes “Mesh material”. Scale bars are 50 μm. Quantitative assessment of macrophage infiltration (b). The proportion of CD68+ or CD206+ cells among total cells were counted in 20 fields of view at 400× magnification for each animal individually. Values are expressed as average ± SD. * denotes significant difference (p < 0.05) between linked groups. M2‐polarized macrophages were underrepresented in the PGA group, which can be regarded as a drawback of this type of prosthesis. Relative Expression levels of pro‐inflammatory and anti‐inflammatory cytokines (c). Gene expression dynamics indicates more profound and prolonged inflammatory reaction in response to Permacol than to synthetic mesh implants. n = 6 per group at each time point. Values are expressed as average ± SD. * denotes significant difference (p < 0.05) between linked groups.