Comparison of Two Porcine-Derived Materials for Repairing Abdominal Wall Defects in Rats

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical properties, host responses and incorporation of porcine small intestine submucosa (PSIS) and porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM) in a rat model of abdominal wall defect repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prior to implantation, PSIS and PADM were prepared and evaluated in terms of structure and mechanical properties. Full-thickness abdominal wall defects were created in 50 Sprague-Dawley rats, and were repaired using either PSIS or PADM. Rats were sacrificed 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks post-repair and examined for herniation, infection, adhesions, contraction, and changes in the thickness and strength of the tissues incorporated at the defect sites. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to analyze inflammatory responses, collagen deposition and vascularization. RESULTS: PADM showed more dense collagen deposition and stronger mechanical properties than PSIS prior to implantation (P<0.01). However, the mechanical properties observed after integration with the surrounding native tissues was similar for PADM and PSIS. Both PADM and PSIS showed significant contraction by week 12. However, PADM tissue induced less adhesion and increased in thickness more slowly, and showed less infiltration by foreign giant cells, polymorphonuclear cells, and mononuclear cells. Improved remodeling of host tissue was observed after PSIS implantation, which was apparent from the orientation of bands of fibrous connective tissue, intermixed with newly formed blood vessels by Week 12. CONCLUSION: PSIS showed weaker mechanical properties prior to implantation. However, after implantation PSIS induced more pronounced host responses and showed better incorporation into host tissues than PADM

Repair of abdominal wall defects in vitro and in vivo using VEGF sustained-release multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNT) composite scaffolds.

OBJECTIVE: Porcine acellular dermal matrices (ADM) have been widely used in experimental and clinical research for abdominal wall repair. Compared to porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS), the effect of these matrices on the regenerative capacity of blood vessels is still not ideal. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) can more effectively transport VEGF to cells or tissues because of their large specific surface area and interior cavity. In this study, we explored the safety and efficacy of implanted VEGF-loaded MWNT composite scaffolds in vitro and vivo to repair abdominal wall defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: VEGF-loaded MWNTs were prepared by a modified plasma polymerization treatment. Four composite scaffolds were evaluated for cytotoxicity, proliferation, and release dynamics. We created 3 cm×4 cm abdominal wall defects in 43 Sprague-Dawley rats. After implantation times of 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, the scaffolds and the surrounding tissues were collected and examined by gross inspection, biomechanical testing, and histological examination. RESULTS: A 5-10 nm poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) film was evenly distributed on MWNTs. The 3% MWNT composite group showed lower cytotoxicity and appropriate release performance, and it was thus tested in vivo. In rats with the 3% composite implanted, host cells were prevented from migrating to the ADM at 2 weeks, vascularization was established more rapidly at 12 weeks, and the values for both the maximum load and the elastic modulus were significantly lower than in the ADM-alone group (p<0.01). Histological staining revealed that the MWNT was still not completely eliminated 12 weeks after implantation. CONCLUSION: MWNTs were able to carry VEGF to cells or tissues, and the 3% MWNT composite material showed lower cytotoxicity and had an appropriate release performance, which prompted faster vascularization of the ADM than other scaffolds. Nevertheless, the MWNTs induced harmful effects that should be carefully considered in biomedical studies

Surface area of PSIS and PADM.

<p>Both PSIS and PADM showed significant contraction after implantation.</p

Mechanical properties of PSIS and PADM.

<p>**<b><i>vs</i></b><b> PADM(</b><b><i>P</i></b><b><0.01).</b></p><p> <b>Psi = 6.895 Kpa.</b></p

The strength of incorporation of the PSIS and PADM implants during the course of the experiment.

<p>The strength of incorporation of the PSIS and PADM implants during the course of the experiment.</p

Semiquantitative adhesion scoring system.

<p>Semiquantitative adhesion scoring system.</p

Contraction of the implants 12 weeks after implantation.

<p>The contraction of the implants surrounding the sutures (arrows) repairing the abdominal wall defects. A) PSIS implant. B) PADM implant. C) Contracted PSIS implant 12 weeks after implantation. D) Contracted PADM implant 12 weeks after implantation.</p