| Literature DB >> 34664123 |
Guillermo U Ruiz-Esparza1,2, Xichi Wang1,2,3, Xingcai Zhang4, Sofia Jimenez-Vazquez1,2,5,6, Liliana Diaz-Gomez1,2,5,6, Anne-Marie Lavoie1,2, Samson Afewerki1,2, Andres A Fuentes-Baldemar1,2,5,6, Roberto Parra-Saldivar1,2,5,6, Nan Jiang1,2,7, Nasim Annabi8, Bahram Saleh9, Ali K Yetisen10, Amir Sheikhi1,2,11,12, Thomas H Jozefiak1,2, Su Ryon Shin1,2, Nianguo Dong3, Ali Khademhosseini13,14,15.
Abstract
More than 90% of surgical patients develop postoperative adhesions, and the incidence of hospital re-admissions can be as high as 20%. Current adhesion barriers present limited efficacy due to difficulties in application and incompatibility with minimally invasive interventions. To solve this clinical limitation, we developed an injectable and sprayable shear-thinning hydrogel barrier (STHB) composed of silicate nanoplatelets and poly(ethylene oxide). We optimized this technology to recover mechanical integrity after stress, enabling its delivery though injectable and sprayable methods. We also demonstrated limited cell adhesion and cytotoxicity to STHB compositions in vitro. The STHB was then tested in a rodent model of peritoneal injury to determine its efficacy preventing the formation of postoperative adhesions. After two weeks, the peritoneal adhesion index was used as a scoring method to determine the formation of postoperative adhesions, and STHB formulations presented superior efficacy compared to a commercially available adhesion barrier. Histological and immunohistochemical examination showed reduced adhesion formation and minimal immune infiltration in STHB formulations. Our technology demonstrated increased efficacy, ease of use in complex anatomies, and compatibility with different delivery methods, providing a robust universal platform to prevent postoperative adhesions in a wide range of surgical interventions.Entities:
Keywords: Nanomedicine; Nanotechnology; Postoperative adhesions; Shear-thinning hydrogel; Silicate nanoplatelets
Year: 2021 PMID: 34664123 PMCID: PMC8523737 DOI: 10.1007/s40820-021-00712-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomicro Lett ISSN: 2150-5551
Fig. 1STHB formulation and rheological characterization. a Schematic representation of STHB formulation and delivery methods. b The composition and viscosity of STHB formulations is presented in several SNP/PEO ratios. Inherent viscosity was obtained by recording the maximum value during rheological shear rate sweeps after a 5-min equilibration at 37 °C. c Viscosity versus shear rate was obtained, viscosity decreased as shear rate increased, illustrating the shear-thinning properties of the compositions. d Strain (0.001 to 1000% at 1 Hz) versus storage moduli (G′) was quantified to determine the linear viscoelastic regions (LVR) of STHB formulations, the plateau of G’ indicates the strain resistance of the compositions before deformation and transition to a liquid-like state. e Tan (δ) versus strain was calculated to determine the elastic to viscous transformation, the gel point [tan(δ) = 1] was found at ~ 10 strain (%). f Storage moduli (G′) was recorded during multiple cycles of low (1%) and high (100%) strain, the light gray regions indicate rapid sample recovery to its original modulus
Fig. 2Delivery assessment and degradation kinetics of STHB. a Schematic representation of the setup used to characterize the injection force via a mechanical tester. b Measurements were performed in newtons (N), and the plateau was used to determine the maximum required injection force to extrude the hydrogels. c Higher SNP concentration and smaller needle intraluminal diameters resulted in higher required injection force. d Schematic representation of the system used to spray STHB. e STHB spraying was performed from a 22G nozzle, at a 1 mL/min flow rate and 100 kPa. f Total spray area was measured after 5 mL of STHBs were applied from a distance of 20 cm. Formulations with increased SNP concentration exhibited smaller spray areas. g The spot distribution of STHB formulations was captured and quantified after applying 0.1 mL of STHBs from a distance of 20 cm. Scale bars = 2 cm. h Average spot area was determined, and higher viscosity formulations resulted on increased average spot areas. i Schematic representation of the setup used to determine and measure the spreadability of STHB compositions. j STHB formulations with higher SNP concentration resulted in less spread area, the inclusion of PEO in the compositions did not have any effect in their spreadability. k Degradation kinetics of STHB formulations after 21 days. l Swelling ratio of STHB formulations was determined over a course of 21 days; maximum swelling occurred after 3 days of incubation. Data are represented in means ± SD, n = 3 for (f), (h), (j), (k), and (l), n = 5 for (c). P values were determined by Student t test (ns: P > 0.05)
Fig. 3In vitro biological characterization of material–cell (STHB-fibroblast) interactions. a Schematic representation of the test used to determine adherence and morphological features of 3T3 fibroblasts seeded in the surface of STHB formulations. b 3T3 cell viability was determined by using relative fluorescence units to correlate cell numbers; the inclusion of 3 wt% PEO on STHB formulations decreased cell adherence to hydrogel surfaces significantly. c Representative fluorescence micrographs of cellular morphological features of 3T3 cells after 24 h of incubation on the surface of PTFE substrates (control), SNP STHB formulations (5L, 8L, 10L), and SNP/PEO STHB formulations (5L3P, 8L3P, 10L3P). In the presence of SNP/PEO STHB compositions, fibroblasts (red) exhibited limited pseudopodia expansion. Scale bars = 100 µm. d 3T3 cellular morphology was analyzed by quantifying the cell area and aspect ratio of the fibroblasts seeded on PTFE substrates (control), SNP STHB formulations (5L, 8L, 10L), and SNP/PEO STHB formulations (5L3P, 8L3P, 10L3P). SNP/PEO STHB compositions presented a reduced cell area and aspect ratio (gray area). The ability of THP-1 cells to adhere and infiltrate the STHB formulations was investigated after incubating the cells with the hydrogel system for 24 h; Matrigel was used as a positive control. e Schematic representation of the test used to determine adherence of THP-1 cells to the Matrigel matrix and STHB formulations. f Quantification of cell numbers per mm2 was performed analyzing fluorescence micrographs; it was concluded that STHB formulations provided superior efficacy in preventing cellular adhesion when compared to Matrigel. g Fluorescence micrographs showed that after TNF-α stimulation, THP-1 cells infiltrated and adhered to STHB formulations in significantly lower numbers when compared to Matrigel. F-actin was stained using phalloidin and can be observed in red, and nucleus was stained with DAPI and can be observed in blue. Scale bars = 100 µm. Data are represented in means ± SD, n = 5 for (b) and (f), n = 60 for (d). ns: not significant, **p value < 0.01, ***p value < 0.001, ****p value < 0.0001. P values determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). (Color figure online)
Fig. 4In vivo assessment of STHB efficacy in the prevention of postoperative adhesions. a Schematic representation of a rat peritoneal adhesion model, eight ischemic buttons were created by grasping and ligating parietal peritoneum; Seprafilm® and STHB were applied to the buttons in different groups. b Peritoneal adhesion index (PAI) was used to grade postoperative adhesion formation. c Representative images of the application of Seprafilm® and STHB formulations (5L3P, 8L3P, and 10L3P) on the peritoneal ischemic buttons, a sham group was used as a control; STHB formulations were easily delivered at the injury site achieving the formation of a resistant coating and barrier. Black arrows indicate ischemic buttons and delivery site. d After 14 days, the incision was reopened to evaluate adhesion formation; STHB formulations resulted in decreased adhesion formation compared to Seprafilm® and control. Black arrows indicate postoperative adhesions. e The average adhesion score was calculated using the PAI scoring system; 10L3P group presented the lower score. f The average adhesion formation (%) per rat was calculated by percentage of buttons affected; STHB formulations resulted in less amount of adhesion formations. g Normalized average efficacy was defined as the decrease (%) of adhesion formation compared to the control; STHB formulations presented superior performance compared to Seprafilm®. Data are represented in means ± SD, n = 5 for (e), (f), and (g). P values determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Fig. 5Histological examination of tissue remodeling and immune infiltration. Representative micrographs of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and Masson’s trichome staining from postoperative adhesion tissue are presented (insets represent magnified areas of the mesothelial lining, the interface where the material was applied and zones where adhesion formations could occur). a H&E staining was performed and the interface between the injured peritoneal lining, and fibrotic tissue can be observed in control, Seprafilm®, 5L3P, and 8L3P groups. On the 10L3P group, the peritoneal lining was preserved, and no adhesions were detected. Black arrows indicate adhesion formation areas. b Masson’s trichrome staining was performed in all the groups, muscular tissue can be observed in red and collagen in blue (white asterisks); highly organized fibrotic collagen bands were identified on control, Seprafilm® and 5L3P. The more viscous STHB formulations (8L3P and 10L3P) presented a decreased and more homogenous collagen distribution as observed on the micrographs and their respective magnified insets. Black arrows indicate adhesion formation areas. c Immunohistochemistry was performed in all the groups to determine macrophage (CD68, red) and lymphocyte (CD3, green) infiltration in response to the materials; nuclear staining (DAPI) can be observed in blue. Minimal localized immune infiltration was found in all the groups indicating negligible host immune response against the materials. Insets show magnified sections of the tissues. Scale bars on H&E (a) and Masson’s trichrome (b) micrographs are 1 mm on the left picture, and 200 µm on the magnified insets in the right. Scale bars on the fluorescence micrographs (c) are 100 µm for the original microscopy image and 100 µm for the insets below. (Color figure online)