| Literature DB >> 35004652 |
Yuchen Bao1, Zhenguang Li1, Yingze Li1, Tao Chen2, Yu Cheng1, Meidong Xu2.
Abstract
Esophageal stricture commonly occurs in patients that have suffered from endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and it makes swallowing difficult for patients, significantly reducing their life qualities. So far, the prevention strategies applied in clinical practice for post-ESD esophageal stricture usually bring various inevitable complications, which drastically counteract their effectiveness. Nowadays, with the widespread investigation and application of biomedical materials, lots of novel approaches have been devised in terms of the prevention of esophageal stricture. Biomedical polymers and biomedical-derived materials are the most used biomedical materials to prevent esophageal stricture after ESD. Both of biomedical polymers and biomedical-derived materials possess great physicochemical properties such as biocompatibility and biodegradability. Moreover, some biomedical polymers can be used as scaffolds to promote cell growth, and biomedical-derived materials have biological functions similar to natural organisms, so they are important in tissue engineering. In this review, we have summarized the current approaches for preventing esophageal stricture and put emphasis on the discussion of the roles biomedical polymers and biomedical-derived materials acted in esophageal stricture prevention. Meanwhile, we proposed several potential methods that may be highly rational and feasible in esophageal stricture prevention based on other researches associated with biomedical materials. This review is expected to offer a significant inspiration from biomedical materials to explore more effective, safer, and more economical strategies to manage post-ESD esophageal stricture.Entities:
Keywords: biomedical derived materials; biomedical polymer; endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); esophageal stricture; tissue engineering
Year: 2021 PMID: 35004652 PMCID: PMC8727907 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.792929
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Schematic representation of the formation process of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and the endoscopic photographs of esophageal stricture. (A) The schematic diagram of the formation of esophageal stricture. (i) ESD surgery. (ii) Irregular mucosal defect left after surgery. (iii) Acute inflammatory reaction in exposed mucosal wounds. (iv) Massive proliferation of myofibroblasts after inflammation accompanied by angiogenesis in the submucosa. (v) Extensive fibrosis of the esophageal mucosal wound forming a scar. (vi) Scar formation and contracture at the wound result in esophageal stricture. (B) Endoscopic pictures of the esophagus. (i) Normal esophagus. (ii) Esophagus with mucosal layer stripped by ESD. (iii) Stricture-forming esophagus. Reproduced from Chu et al. (2019). Copyright (2019), with permission from Springer Nature.
FIGURE 2New strategies that have been reported to prevent post-ESD esophageal stricture. Approaches involve biomedical polymers: including polyglycolic acid (PGA)/carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) sheets, peptide hydrogels, and multifunctional hydrophobized microparticles. Methods covering the biomedical-derived materials incorporating cell sheets, cell suspension, and extracellular matrix (ECM) stents.
FIGURE 3Newly proposed healing dressings based on biocompatible biomedical polymers. (A) Esophageal perforation was completely covered by PGA sheets. (B) The endoscopic image of the esophageal perforation with PGA sheets after 6 days of ESD. (C) The endoscopic image of the esophagus after 3 months of ESD. Reproduced from Seehawong et al. (2019). Copyright (2019), with permission from Springer Nature.
FIGURE 4The behaviors of mouse esophageal epithelial cells (mOECs) and rat esophageal stromal fibroblasts (rOSFs) cultured on the surface of peptide hydrogels (A) and embedded within peptide hydrogels (B). [A (i)] Schematic diagram of mOECs cultured on the surface of peptide hydrogels. [A (ii)] The viability and proliferation of mOECs cultured on different peptide hydrogel surfaces for 3 days. [A (iii, iv)] The assessment of metabolic viability of mOECs cultured on the surface of different peptide hydrogels at different time points. [B (i)] Schematic diagram of rOSFs cultured into peptide hydrogels. [B (ii)] The viability and proliferation of rOSFs cultured into different peptide hydrogels. [B (iii)] The distribution of rOSFs within the different peptide hydrogels at the culture time point of 7 and 14 days. Reproduced from Kumar et al. (2017). Copyright (2017), with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
FIGURE 5The application of CMC sheet to prevent esophageal stricture after ESD. (A) The process of delivering CMC sheet to the defect of the esophagus. (B) The comparison of the esophagus between the control group and the CMC group. (C) The comparison of fibrosis thickness (blue double-headed arrow) in the submucosa of the esophagus between the CMC-treated group and the control group. (D) The comparison of regenerated epithelial lengths of the esophagus between the CMC-treated group and the control group (red boxes designate the boundary between the regenerated mucosal layer and original mucosa, and red arrows refer to the edge of the regenerating mucosal epithelium). The esophageal mucosal epithelium regeneration in the CMC group was better than that in control group. Reproduced from Tang et al. (2018b). Copyright (2018), with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
FIGURE 6The preparation and application of colloidal wound dressings to facilitate ulcer healing after ESD. (A) The schematic diagram of multifunctional hydrophobic colloidal dressings for wound repair. (B) Hydrophobic colloidal dressings effectively suppressed wound fibrosis after ESD in the swine stomach model. Reproduced from Nishiguchi et al. (2019). Copyright (2019), with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
FIGURE 7The treatment of the esophageal defect after ESD by transplantation of cell sheets composed of autologous oral mucosal epithelial cells. (A) Oral mucosal epithelial cells (OMECs) were taken from the patients’ oral cavity. (B) The OMECs were seeded on temperature-responsive culture inserts and cultured for 16 days. (C) Cell sheets composed of OMECs were harvested by reducing temperature to 20°C. (D) Cell sheets composed of OMECs were transplanted immediately on the esophageal defect under endoscopy after ESD. Reproduced from Ohki and Yamamoto (2020). Copyright (2020), with permission from Elsevier.
FIGURE 8Adipose tissue-derived stromal cellADSC) injection to prevent esophageal stricture. (A) The schematic diagram of cell injection. (B) The esophageal defect left after EMR and ADSCs were injected into the submucosa of the esophagus. (C) The pathological analysis of the esophagus. [C (i)] The esophageal mucosa tissue in the control group (Masson trichrome). [C (ii)] The esophageal mucosa tissue in the ADSC-treated group. [C (iii)] Stain-labelled ADSCs (red color) in the submucosa of the esophagus in the cell injection group. [C (iv)] Submucosal layer of the esophagus in the control group. [C (v)] Submucosal layer of the esophagus in the ADSC-treated group. [C (vi)] The comparison of the number of microvessels in esophageal submucosa between the control group and the ADSC-injected group. Reproduced from Honda et al. (2011). Copyright (2011), with permission from Elsevier.
FIGURE 9The ECM stents that have been reported to prevent esophageal stricture. (A) The schematic diagram of deployment of ECM stent with the internal supporting of balloons. (B) Endoscopic image of the ECM stent applied to post-EMR esophageal defect. (C) The histological assessment of the esophagus after 2 months of the deployment of ECM stents. [C (i)] The esophageal mucosa treated by ECM stents has intact squamous epithelium. [C (ii)] The gland formation in the submucosa of the esophagus treated with ECM stents. [C (iii)] The significant fibrosis with extensive infiltration of inflammatory cells in the esophageal submucosa in the control group. Reproduced from Nieponice et al. (2009). Copyright (2009), with permission from Elsevier.
The advantages and limitations of strategies having been reported to prevent esophageal stricture after ESD.
| Approaches | Advantages | Limitations | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanical methods | Endoscopic balloon dilation | Sustaining long clinical use with quick effect | Demanding multiple dilatations; spending much time; uncomfortable to patients; and having the risk of bleeding, bacteremia, perforation, and re-stricture |
| Metal stent implantation | Safe and effective to prevent esophageal stenosis | Prone to be displaced and having complications of bleeding and perforation | |
| Biodegradable stent implantation | No long-term complications, no need for manual removal, and can avoid re-injury of the esophagus | Poor capability of self-expansion, weak mechanical strength, and the placing process is complicated | |
| Pharmaceutical prevention | Systemic steroid | Strong anti-inflammation and fibrosis-inhibition effect, very convenient, and accessible for patients to take | May induce many systematic side effects and lacking efficacy to esophageal mucosal defects |
| Local injection of steroid | Powerful for inhibiting inflammation and decreasing the systematic side effects | Susceptible to complications related to injection operation | |
| Other medicine injections | Having an inhibitory effect on inflammation and fibrosis | Optimal dosage and usage time need to be clarified | |
| Approaches involving biomedical polymers | PGA sheets | Successful to cover the defect and promote the regeneration of mucosal tissue | Difficult to stay at the defect for a long time, some patients may be allergic to them, and the feasibility and usefulness remain to be discussed for defects accompanied by bleeding |
| Peptide hydrogels | Supporting the formation of functional and continued epithelial cell sheet | The study is performed on an | |
| CMC sheets | Biocompatible and biodegradable and exhibit some preventive effects in several studies | Larger sample size and longer observation period are needed | |
| Colloidal dressing | Accelerating blood coagulation in defect, enhancing epithelialization, interacting with immune cells, and promoting angiogenesis | Experiments are done on animals at most currently, so safety and effectiveness are to be studied further | |
| Methods covering biomedical-derived materials | Cell sheets | Promoting esophageal mucosal repair and inhibiting the degree of mucosal fibrosis | Accessible to falling off and having the risk of infection, huge costs, and the preparation process is cumbersome |
| Autologous cell suspension | Simple and accessible to perform without requiring lots of time and economical expenses | Limited number of isolated cells and low utilization efficiency and having the risk of tumor recurrence | |
| Extracellular matrix stents | Having little pro-inflammatory effect, adapting well to esophageal defects, and containing a large number of cellular active components to promote tissue repair | There are few clinical trials | |
| Autologous transplantation | Autologous gastro-esophageal mucosal/esophageal mucosal/skin transplantation | Having no inflammatory response and the grafting process is accessible | Lack of clinical samples |
FIGURE 10Novel potential strategies involve polymeric materials to prevent post-ESD esophageal stricture. (A) Microneedles loading anti-inflammatory or anti-fibrosis drugs into the needle body. (B) Microneedles incorporating active functional cells. (C) Hydrogel-based adhesive dressing loading pharmaceuticals. (D) Hydrogel adhesives incorporating transplanted cells.