Literature DB >> 33449622

Design Considerations to Facilitate Clinical Radiological Evaluation of Implantable Biomedical Structures.

Kendell M Pawelec1, Shatadru Chakravarty1, Jeremy M L Hix1, Karen L Perry2, Lodewijk van Holsbeeck1, Ryan Fajardo1, Erik M Shapiro1.   

Abstract

Clinical effectiveness of implantable medical devices would be improved with in situ monitoring to ensure device positioning, determine subsequent damage, measure biodegradation, and follow healing. While standard clinical imaging protocols are appropriate for diagnosing disease and injury, these protocols have not been vetted for imaging devices. This study investigated how radiologists use clinical imaging to detect the location and integrity of implanted devices and whether embedding nanoparticle contrast agents into devices can improve assessment. To mimic the variety of devices available, phantoms from hydrophobic polymer films and hydrophilic gels were constructed, with and without computed tomography (CT)-visible TaOx and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible Fe3O4 nanoparticles. Some phantoms were purposely damaged by nick or transection. Phantoms were implanted in vitro into tissue and imaged with clinical CT, MRI, and ultrasound. In a blinded study, radiologists independently evaluated whether phantoms were present, assessed the type, and diagnosed whether phantoms were damaged or intact. Radiologists identified the location of phantoms 80% of the time. However, without incorporated nanoparticles, radiologists correctly assessed damage in only 54% of cases. With an incorporated imaging agent, the percentage jumped to 86%. The imaging technique which was most useful to radiologists varied with the properties of phantoms. With benefits and drawbacks to all three imaging modalities, future implanted devices should be engineered for visibility in the modality which best fits the treated tissue, the implanted device's physical location, and the type of required information. Imaging protocols should also be tailored to best exploit the properties of the imaging agents.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical imaging; contrast agent; implantable device; nanoparticles

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33449622      PMCID: PMC8670580          DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c01439

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ACS Biomater Sci Eng        ISSN: 2373-9878


  32 in total

1.  Surface engineering of bismuth nanocrystals to counter dissolution.

Authors:  Shatadru Chakravarty; Jason Unold; Dorela D Shuboni-Mulligan; Barbara Blanco-Fernandez; Erik M Shapiro
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 7.790

Review 2.  On the genealogy of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

Authors:  Himanshu Kaul; Yiannis Ventikos
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 6.389

3.  MR and PET-CT monitoring of tissue-engineered vascular grafts in the ovine carotid artery.

Authors:  Frederic Wolf; Vera Paefgen; Oliver Winz; Marianne Mertens; Sabine Koch; Nicolas Gross-Weege; Agnieszka Morgenroth; Anne Rix; Heike Schnoering; Khaled Chalabi; Stefan Jockenhoevel; Twan Lammers; Felix Mottaghy; Fabian Kiessling; Petra Mela
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 12.479

4.  Nondestructive, longitudinal measurement of collagen scaffold degradation using computed tomography and gold nanoparticles.

Authors:  Tyler A Finamore; Tyler E Curtis; James V Tedesco; Kathryn Grandfield; Ryan K Roeder
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 7.790

Review 5.  Biomedical Imaging: Principles, Technologies, Clinical Aspects, Contrast Agents, Limitations and Future Trends in Nanomedicines.

Authors:  Justine Wallyn; Nicolas Anton; Salman Akram; Thierry F Vandamme
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 6.  CT and MRI Techniques for Imaging Around Orthopedic Hardware.

Authors:  Thuy Duong Do; Reto Sutter; Stephan Skornitzke; Marc-André Weber
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2017-09-21

7.  Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator.

Authors:  Robert J Russo; Heather S Costa; Patricia D Silva; Jeffrey L Anderson; Aysha Arshad; Robert W W Biederman; Noel G Boyle; Jennifer V Frabizzio; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Steven L Higgins; Rachel Lampert; Christian E Machado; Edward T Martin; Andrew L Rivard; Jason C Rubenstein; Raymond H M Schaerf; Jennifer D Schwartz; Dipan J Shah; Gery F Tomassoni; Gail T Tominaga; Allison E Tonkin; Seth Uretsky; Steven D Wolff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Iron Oxide-labeled Collagen Scaffolds for Non-invasive MR Imaging in Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Marianne E Mertens; Alina Hermann; Anne Bühren; Leon Olde-Damink; Diana Möckel; Felix Gremse; Josef Ehling; Fabian Kiessling; Twan Lammers
Journal:  Adv Funct Mater       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 18.808

9.  Ultra Short Echo Time MRI of Iron-Labelled Mesenchymal Stem Cells in an Ovine Osteochondral Defect Model.

Authors:  Joshua D Kaggie; Hareklea Markides; Martin J Graves; James MacKay; Gavin Houston; Alicia El Haj; Fiona Gilbert; Frances Henson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Smart implants in orthopedic surgery, improving patient outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Eric H Ledet; Benjamin Liddle; Katerina Kradinova; Sara Harper
Journal:  Innov Entrep Health       Date:  2018-08-29
View more
  1 in total

1.  Methacrylate-Modified Gold Nanoparticles Enable Non-Invasive Monitoring of Photocrosslinked Hydrogel Scaffolds.

Authors:  Lan Li; Carmen J Gil; Tyler A Finamore; Connor J Evans; Martin L Tomov; Liqun Ning; Andrea Theus; Gabriella Kabboul; Vahid Serpooshan; Ryan K Roeder
Journal:  Adv Nanobiomed Res       Date:  2022-06-15
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.