Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biomimetic coatings and negative pressure wound therapy independently limit epithelial downgrowth around percutaneous devices

  • Engineering and Nano-engineering Approaches for Medical Devices
  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biomimetic material coatings and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) have been shown independently to limit the epithelial downgrowth rates in percutaneous devices. It was therefore hypothesized that these techniques, in combination, could further limit the clinically observed epithelial downgrowth around these devices. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of two biomimetic coatings, collagen and hydroxyapatite (HA), to prevent downgrowth when used with continuous NPWT. Using an established single-stage surgical protocol, collagen (n = 10) and HA (n = 10) coated devices were implanted subdermally on the back of hairless guinea pigs. Five animals from each group were subjected to continuous ~90 mmHg NPWT. Four weeks post-implantation, animals were sacrificed, and the devices and surrounding tissues were harvested, processed, and downgrowth was computed and compared to historical porous titanium coated controls. Data showed a significant reduction in downgrowth in NPWT treated animals (p ≤ 0.05) when compared to the untreated porous titanium controls. HA coated devices, without the NPWT treatment, also showed significantly decreased downgrowth compared to the untreated porous titanium controls.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tillander J, Hagberg K, Hagberg L, Branemark R. Osseointegrated titanium implants for limb prostheses attachments: infectious complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2781–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sullivan J, Uden M, Robinson KP, Sooriakumaran S. Rehabilitation of the trans-femoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: the United Kingdom experience. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:114–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Van de Meent H, Hopman MT, Frolke JP. Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:2174–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hagberg K, Branemark R. One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses—rehabilitation perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:331–44.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dasse KA. Infection of percutaneous devices: prevention, monitoring, and treatment. J Biomed Mater Res. 1984;18:403–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Feldman DS, von Recum AF. Non-epidermally induced failure modes of percutaneous devices. Biomaterials. 1985;6:352–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Juhnke DL, Beck JP, Jeyapalina S, Aschoff HH. Fifteen years of experience with integral-leg-prosthesis: cohort study of artificial limb attachment system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:407–20.

    Google Scholar 

  8. von Recum AF. Applications and failure modes of percutaneous devices: a review. J Biomed Mater Res. 1984;18:323–36.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Black J. Biological performance of materials: fundamentals of biocompatibility. 4th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Taylor & Francis; 2006.

  10. Zhao L, Chu PK, Zhang Y, Wu Z. Antibacterial coatings on titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;91:470–80.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Holt BM, Bachus KN, Beck JP, Bloebaum RD, Jeyapalina S. Immediate post-implantation skin immobilization decreases skin regression around percutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic implant systems. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101:2075–82.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gristina AG, Naylor P, Myrvik Q. Infections from biomaterials and implants: a race for the surface. Med Prog Technol. 1988;14:205–24.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20:86–100.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chehroudi B, Gould TR, Brunette DM. The role of connective tissue in inhibiting epithelial downgrowth on titanium-coated percutaneous implants. J Biomed Mater Res. 1992;26:493–515.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Aschoff HH, Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Rubin LE. Transcutaneous, distal femoral, intramedullary attachment for above-the-knee prostheses: an endo-exo device. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:180–6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Branemark R, Berlin O, Hagberg K, Bergh P, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B. A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective study of 51 patients. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:106–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Trindade R, Albrektsson T, Tengvall P, Wennerberg A. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials: on mechanisms for buildup and breakdown of osseointegration. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:192–203.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rimondini L, Fare S, Brambilla E, Felloni A, Consonni C, Brossa F et al. The effect of surface roughness on early in vivo plaque colonization on titanium. J Periodontol. 1997;68:556–62.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Squier CA, Collins P. The Relationship between soft-tissue attachment, epithelial downgrowth and surface porosity. J Periodontal Res. 1981;16:434–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim H, Murakami H, Chehroudi B, Textor M, Brunette DM. Effects of surface topography on the connective tissue attachment to subcutaneous implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:354–65.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson JM. Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Res. 2001;31:81–110.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Isackson D, McGill LD, Bachus KN. Percutaneous implants with porous titanium dermal barriers: an in vivo evaluation of infection risk. Med Eng Phys. 2011;33:418–26.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mitchell SJ, Jeyapalina S, Nichols FR, Agarwal J, Bachus KN. Negative pressure wound therapy limits downgrowth in percutaneous devices. Wound Repair Regen. 2015;24:35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jeyapalina S, Beck JP, Bachus KN, Williams DL, Bloebaum RD. Efficacy of a porous-structured titanium subdermal barrier for preventing infection in percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses. J Orthop Res. 2012;30:1304–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ratner BD. Reducing capsular thickness and enhancing angiogenesis around implant drug release systems. J Control Release. 2002;78:211–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chehroudi B, Gould TRL, Brunette DM. Titanium-coated micromachined grooves of different dimensions affect epithelial and connective-tissue cells differently in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res. 1990;24:1203–19.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pendegrass CJ, Goodship AE, Blunn GW. Development of a soft tissue seal around bone-anchored transcutaneous amputation prostheses. Biomaterials. 2006;27:4183–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kang NV, Morritt D, Pendegrass C, Blunn G. Use of ITAP implants for prosthetic reconstruction of extra-oral craniofacial defects. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kang NV, Pendegrass C, Marks L, Blunn G. Osseocutaneous integration of an intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prosthesis implant used for reconstruction of a transhumeral amputee: Case report. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35:1130–4.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lancerotto L, Bayer LR, Orgill DP. Mechanisms of action of microdeformational wound therapy. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2012;23:987–92.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Erba P, Ogawa R, Ackermann M, Adini A, Miele LF, Dastouri P, et al. Angiogenesis in wounds treated by microdeformational wound therapy. Ann Surg. 2011;253:402–9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Orgill DP, Bayer LR. Update on negative-pressure wound therapy. Plast Reconst Surg. 2011;127:105S–15S.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Orgill DP, Bayer LR. Negative pressure wound therapy: past, present and future. Int Wound J. 2013;10:15–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holt BM, Betz DH, Ford TA, Beck JP, Bloebaum RD, Jeyapalina S. Pig dorsum model for examining impaired wound healing at the skin-implant interface of percutaneous devices. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24:2181–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Turksen K. Epidermal cells: methods and protocols. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Morasso MI, Tomic-Canic M. Epidermal stem cells: the cradle of epidermal determination, differentiation and wound healing. Biol Cell. 2005;97:173–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Geissler U, Hempel U, Wolf C, Scharnweber D, Worch H, Wenzel K. Collagen type I-coating of Ti6Al4V promotes adhesion of osteoblasts. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51:752–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bellis SL. Advantages of RGD peptides for directing cell association with biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2011;32:4205–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Flanagan M (eds). Wound healing and skin integrity: principles and practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2013; 3rd edition.

  40. Buckley CD, Pilling D, Henriquez NV, Parsonage G, Threlfall K, Scheel-Toellner D et al. RGD peptides induce apoptosis by direct caspase-3 activation. Nature. 1999;397:534–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Cook SJ, Nichols FR, Jeyapalina S, Bachus KN. Two-stage surgical approach limits skin downgrowth around a percutaneous device. New Orleans, LA: Transactions of the Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society; 2014.

  42. Emmanual J, Hornbeck C, Bloebaum RD. A polymethyl methacrylate method for large specimens of mineralized bone with implants. Stain Technol. 1987;62:401–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Pendegrass CJ, Gordon D, Middleton CA, Sun SN, Blunn GW. Sealing the skin barrier around transcutaneous implants: in vitro study of keratinocyte proliferation and adhesion in response to surface modifications of titanium alloy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:114–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Holt B, Tripathi A, Morgan J. Viscoelastic response of human skin to low magnitude physiologically relevant shear. J Biomech. 2008;41:2689–95.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ducheyne P, Healy K, Hutmacher DW, Grainger DW, Kirkpatrick CJ. Comprehensive biomaterials, (eds Ducheyne) 1st ed. Elsevier Science, 2011.

  46. Pendegrass CJ, Goodship AE, Price JS, Blunn GW. Nature’s answer to breaching the skin barrier: an innovative development for amputees. J Anat. 2006;209:59–67.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Jansen JA, van der Waerden JP, de Groot K. Tissue reaction to bone-anchored percutaneous implants in rabbits. J Investig Surg. 1992;5:35–44.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wu Y, Yang BC, Deng CL, Tan YF, Zhang XD. The influence of surface bioactivated modification on titanium percutaneous implants anchored in bone. Int J Artif Organs. 2006;29:630–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Oyane A, Hyodo K, Uchida M, Sogo Y, Ito A. Preliminary in vivo study of apatite and laminin-apatite composite layers on polymeric percutaneous implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2011;97:96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Smith TJ, Galm A, Chatterjee S, Wells R, Pedersen S, Parizi AM et al. Modulation of the soft tissue reactions to percutaneous orthopaedic implants. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:1377–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Fitzpatrick N, Smith TJ, Pendegrass CJ, Yeadon R, Ring M, Goodship AE et al. Intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prosthesis (ITAP) for limb salvage in 4 dogs. Vet Surg. 2011;40:909–25.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bloebaum RD, Beeks D, Dorr LD, Savory CG, DuPont JA, Hofmann AA. Complications with hydroxyapatite particulate separation in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:19–26.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Department of Defense [#W81XWH-11-1-0435, 2010], by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service under Merit Review Award [#I01RX001217, 2014], and by the Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. The views, opinions, and/or findings presented are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official position, policy or decision of any of these funding sources unless so designated by other documentation. In conducting research using animals, the investigators adhered to the Animal Welfare Act Regulations and other Federal statutes relating to animals and experiments involving animals and the principles set forth in the current version of the Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, National Research Council. The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Thortex Inc. (Portland, OR) for device fabrication and coating support. They also wish to acknowledge the Bone and Joint Research Laboratory’s Histology Team for their technical expertize with the samples embedment process, and Greg Stoddard for his help with statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Salt Lake City, UT, 84148, USA

    Sujee Jeyapalina, Saranne J. Mitchell & Kent N. Bachus

  2. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA

    Sujee Jeyapalina & Jayant Agarwal

  3. Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, University of Utah Orthopaedic Center, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA

    Saranne J. Mitchell & Kent N. Bachus

  4. Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA

    Saranne J. Mitchell & Kent N. Bachus

Authors
  1. Sujee Jeyapalina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saranne J. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jayant Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kent N. Bachus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sujee Jeyapalina or Kent N. Bachus.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeyapalina, S., Mitchell, S.J., Agarwal, J. et al. Biomimetic coatings and negative pressure wound therapy independently limit epithelial downgrowth around percutaneous devices. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 30, 71 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-019-6272-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-019-6272-4

Search

Navigation