| Literature DB >> 35386815 |
Jiahao Li1, Jingjing Tian2, Chunxu Li1, Longyun Chen3, Yu Zhao1.
Abstract
CSFL caused by spinal dural defect is a common complication of spinal surgery, which need repair such as suture or sealants. However, low intracranial pressure symptoms, wound infection and prolonged hospital associated with pin-hole leakage or loose seal effect were often occurred after surgical suture or sealants repair. Stable, pressure resistance and high viscosity spinal dural repair patch in wet environment without suture or sealants was highly needed. Herein, a bioactive patch composed of alginate and polyacrylamide hydrogel matrix cross-linked by calcium ions, and chitosan adhesive was proposed. This fabricated patch exhibits the capabilities of promoting defect closure and good tight seal ability with the bursting pressure is more than 790 mm H2O in wet environment. In addition, the chitosan adhesive layer of the patch could inhibit the growth of bacterial in vitro, which is meaningful for the postoperative infection. Furthermore, the patch also significantly reduced the expression of GFAP, IBA-1, MBP, TNF-α, and COX-2 in early postoperative period in vivo study, exerting the effects of anti-inflammatory, analgesic and adhesion prevention. Thus, the bioactive patch expected to be applied in spinal dural repair with the good properties of withstanding high pressure, promoting defect closure and inhibiting postoperative infection.Entities:
Keywords: APS, ammonium persulfate; Alginate hydrogel; Anti-inflammatory; Bacteriostasis; CCK-8, cell counting kit-8; CSFL, cerebrospinal fluid leakage; Chitosan adhesive; Dural defect repair; EDC, 1-(3-Dimethylaminopropyl)-3-ethylcarbodiimide hydrochloride; IHC, immunohistochemistry; MBAA, N,N′-Methylene bisacrylamide; NHS, N-Hydroxysuccinimide; PBS, phosphate buffered saline; SEM, scanning electron microscope; TEMED, N,N,N′,N′-Tetramethylethylenediamine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35386815 PMCID: PMC8964987 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.01.043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioact Mater ISSN: 2452-199X
Fig. 1The macroscopic and microscopic structure of patch matrix. (A) Schematic diagram of cross-linking structure of patch matrix. Green: Sodium alginate. Red: polyacrylamide. (B) Images of the patch matrix before (left) and after (right) coagulation. (C) Photographs of the patch matrix standing and stretching. 1: Patch matrix just removed from the mold. 2: Patch matrix soaked in water for 24 h 3. Patch matrix soaked in 0.25 M calcium chloride for 24 h. a: Stand. b: Stretched. (D) SEM photos of patch matrix soaked in different concentrations of calcium chloride No soaked: Patch matrix just removed from the mold. 0/0.25/0.50/0.75/1.00 M: Patch matrix soaked in 0/0.25/0.50/0.75/1.00 M calcium chloride for 24 h. a: cross section. b: surface.
Fig. 2The tensile properties of patch matrix soaked in different calcium concentrations and different water contents. (A) Schematic diagram of patch matrix with different water content. (B) Stress–strain curves of the hydrogel matrix with different water content. (C) The elongation at break (%) of patch matrix with different water content. (D) The tensile strength of patch matrix with different water content. (E) The Young's modulus of patch matrix with different water content. All the matrix used from (B) to (E) were soaked in 0.25 M calcium ion for 24 h and then dried naturally in the air to reduce water content. (F) Stress–strain curves of the hydrogel matrix soaked in different calcium concentrations for 24 h. The inset of (F) shows a sample with a dimension of 15 mm in length, 10 mm in width, and 2 mm in thickness without stretch (left) and while stretched to 800% (right). (G) The elongation at break (%) of patch matrix soaked in different calcium concentrations. (H) The tensile strength of patch matrix soaked in different calcium concentrations. (I) The Young's modulus of patch matrix soaked in different calcium concentrations. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01, significant difference among different group.
Fig. 3The weight and volume change of the patch after absorbing water and the adhesion and antibacterial function of the adhesive. (A) The weight expansion ratio of patch matrix with size of 3 × 5 mm and thickness of 1 mm, 2 mm and 4 mm soaked in PBS. (B) The volume expansion ratio of patch matrix with size of 3 × 5 mm and thickness of 1 mm, 2 mm and 4 mm soaked in PBS. (C) Adhesion-displacement curves obtained by stretching two patches along the horizontal and vertical directions of the bonding surface. The insert diagrams and photos of (C) show the horizontal (left, red) and vertical (right, blue) directions mean the directions parallel and perpendicular to the bonding surface. (D) The maximum adhesion of the adhesive in two directions. (E) The maximum displacement of the adhesive in two directions. (F) Bacteriostatic effect of adhesive and bacteria after co-culture for 48 h. Control indicates that no adhesive is added to the bacterial solution. Test indicates that an adhesive has been added to the bacterial fluid. The inserted picture shows the dry adhesive layer. (G) Original image of colony count. (The number below each photo indicates dilution). Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01, significant difference among different group.).
Fig. 4The results of the sealing effect of different spinal dural defect repair methods. (A) Schematic diagram of limit pressure test of spinal dural defect repair methods using porcine small intestine. (B) Limit pressure of different spinal dural defect repair methods. (C) Schematic diagram of experimental model of spinal dural defect repair by patch in porcine spinal dura. (D) Pictures of the porcine spinal cords used in the experiment. (E) Photos of the spine at different times after dural defects were repaired using patches. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01, significant difference among different group.
Fig. 5Effect of patch on proliferation and survival of L929 cells. (A) Live/dead cells staining images of L929 cells cultured with extracts of different components in patch. (B) CCK-8 results of L929 cells cultured with extracts of different components in patch. (C) Living cell ratio of L929 cells cultured with extracts of different components in patch. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01, significant difference among different group. The scale means 200 μm. NS: No significance.
Fig. 6Immunohistochemical results of different spinal dural repair methods. (A) Schematic diagram of animal model of spinal dural defect in rats. Surgical photos are inserted below the schematic. (B) AOD values of GFAP in the spinal cord. (C) AOD values of Iba-1 in the spinal cord. (D) AOD values of MBP in the spinal cord. (E) AOD values of TNF-α in the surrounding tissues of dural defects. (F) AOD values of COX-2 in the surrounding tissues of dural defects. (G) The images of rats' spinal dural after immunohistochemical staining (TNF-α). Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01, significant difference among different group. The scale means 50 μm.
Fig. 7Partial biological effects of patch repair on spinal dura. The dotted line indicates the enlargement of the local area. “Patch” means the bioactive patch that we study and manufacture. CSF: cerebrospinal fluid.