Literature DB >> 7272407

Histopathologic observations after short-term implantation of two porous elastomers in dogs.

R A White, F M Hirose, R W Sproat, R S Lawrence, R J Nelson.   

Abstract

This report describes the effects of pore size and material on soft tissue ingrowth of two medical-grade elastomers. Using the replamineform process, silicone rubber (SR) and bioelectric polyurethane (BEP) were rendered microporous with essentially the same microstructural pore configuration. Implants were prepared in each material having five pore size ranges: 18-25 microns, 30-45 microns, 75-95 microns, 60-120 microns, and 120-180 microns. Implants 1 cm X 1 cm X 1 mm were harvested at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks following subcutaneous implantation in mongrel dogs. Ingrowth of the 18-25 microns and 30-45 microns implants in both polymers consisted of histiocytes and dispersed fibrocytic proliferation during the first two weeks. By 12 weeks, the fibrocytic component had increased, but histiocytes remained the principal component of ingrown tissue. In contrast, initial ingrowth of the 75-95 microns, 60-120 microns and 120-180 microns implants showed increased fibrocytic proliferation and minimal histiocytic reaction. By 12 weeks, ingrowth into the larger-pore implants had progressed to broad bands of well organized collagenous stroma. Differences in the rate of tissue ingrowth were found to be related to both material and pore size. Less than 15% of the void spaces were infiltrated by 4 weeks in 18-25 microns and 30-45 microns SR implants, although this increased to approximately 50% by 12 weeks. In contrast, the 3 larger-pore SR implants and all pore sizes in the BEP implants were almost completely ingrown by 4 weeks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1981        PMID: 7272407     DOI: 10.1016/0142-9612(81)90046-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomaterials        ISSN: 0142-9612            Impact factor:   12.479


  7 in total

1.  Physicomechanical evaluation of absorbable and nonabsorbable barrier composite meshes for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  Corey R Deeken; Michael S Abdo; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  In vivo comparison of suburethral sling materials.

Authors:  M Slack; J S Sandhu; D R Staskin; R C Grant
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2005-07-02

Review 3.  Biomaterials for abdominal wall hernia surgery and principles of their applications.

Authors:  P K Amid; A G Shulman; I L Lichtenstein; M Hakakha
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Chir       Date:  1994

4.  A hypothesis-driven parametric study of effects of polymeric scaffold properties on tissue engineered neovessel formation.

Authors:  Kristin S Miller; Ramak Khosravi; Christopher K Breuer; Jay D Humphrey
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 8.947

5.  Degradation, infection and heat effects on polypropylene mesh for pelvic implantation: what was known and when it was known.

Authors:  Donald R Ostergard
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  BETWEEN PROLENE®, ULTRAPRO® AND BARD SOFT® MESHES WHICH PRESENTS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE REPAIR OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL?

Authors:  Carlos Alberto Lima Utrabo; Nicolau Gregori Czeczko; Cesar Roberto Busato; Mário Rodrigues Montemór-Netto; Leandro Lipinski; Osvaldo Malafaia
Journal:  Arq Bras Cir Dig       Date:  2021-06-11

7.  TENSIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF MESHES USED IN ABDOMINAL VENTRAL WALL DEFECTS IN RATS.

Authors:  Carlos Alberto Lima Utrabo; Nicolau Gregori Czeczko; Cesar Roberto Busato; Mário Rodrigues Montemór-Netto; Leandro Lipinski; Osvaldo Malafaia
Journal:  Arq Bras Cir Dig       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.