Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decellularization and In Vivo Recellularization of Abdominal Porcine Fascial Tissue

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Aims and scope

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Tissue decellularization has evolved as a promising approach for tissue engineering applications.

METHODS:

In this study, we harvested fascial tissue from porcine anterior abdominal wall and the samples were decellularized with a combination of agents such as Triton X-100, trypsin and DNAase. Afterwards, we evaluated cell removal by histological analysis and DNA quantification. Mechanical functionality was evaluated by applying a range of hydrostatic pressures. A sample of decellularized fascia was transplanted into a rabbit and after 15 days a biopsy of this tissue was examined; the animal was observed during 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS:

The extracellular matrix was retained with a complete decellularization as evidenced by histologic examination. The DNA content was significantly reduced. The scaffold preserved its tensile mechanical properties. The graft was incorporated into a full thickness defect made in the rabbit abdominal wall. This tissue was infiltrated by granulation and inflammatory cells and the histologic structure was preserved 15 days after surgery. The animal did not develop hernias, infections or other complications, after a 6-months of follow up.

CONCLUSIONS:

The protocol of decellularization of fascial tissue employed in this study proved to be efficient. The mechanical test demonstrated that the samples were not damaged and maintained its physical characteristics; clinical evolution of the rabbit, recipient of the decellularized fascia, demonstrated that the graft was effective as a replacement of native tissue.In conclusion, a biological scaffold derived from porcine fascial tissue may be a suitable candidate for tissue engineering applications.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fink C, Baumann P, Wente MN, Knebel P, Bruckner T, Ulrich A, et al. Incisional hernia rate 3 years after midline laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101:51–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Liasis L, Tierris I, Lazarioti F, Clark CC, Papaconstantinou HT. Traumatic abdominal wall hernia: is the treatment strategy a real problem? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74:1156–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg. 2013;257:991–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Risby K, Jakobsen MS, Qvist N. Congenital abdominal wall defects: staged closure by Dual Mesh. J Neonatal Surg. 2016;5:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ohira G, Kawahira H, Miyauchi H, Suzuki K, Nishimori T, Hanari N, et al. Synthetic polyglycomer short-term absorbable sutures versus polydioxanone long-term absorbable sutures for preventing incisional hernia and wound dehiscence after abdominal wall closure: a comparative randomized study of patients treated for gastric or colon cancer. Surg Today. 2015;45:841–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Abid S, El-Hayek K. Which mesh or graft? Prosthetic devices for abdominal wall reconstruction. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2016;77:157–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pomahac B, Aflaki P. Use of a non-cross-linked porcine dermal scaffold in abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2010;199:22–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bilsel Y, Abci I. The search for ideal hernia repair; mesh materials and types. Int J Surg. 2012;10:317–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang L, Johnson JA, Chang DW, Zhang Q. Decellularized musculofascial extracellular matrix for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2013;34:2641–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. De Keulenaer BL, De Waele JJ, Powell B, Malbrain ML. What is normal intra-abdominal pressure and how is it affected by positioning, body mass and positive end-expiratory pressure? Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:969–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Badylak SF, Taylor D, Uygun K. Whole-organ tissue engineering: decellularization and recellularization of three-dimensional matrix scaffolds. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2011;13:27–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Keane TJ, Swinehart IT, Badylak SF. Methods of tissue decellularization used for preparation of biologic scaffolds and in vivo relevance. Methods. 2015;84:25–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sarikouch S, Horke A, Tudorache I, Beerbaum P, Westhoff-Bleck M, Boethig D, et al. Decellularized fresh homografts for pulmonary valve replacement: a decade of clinical experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50:281–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Badylak SF. Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;42:1517–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Keane TJ, Saldin LT, Badylak SF. 4-Decellularization of mammalian tissues: preparing extracellular matrix bioscaffolds. In: Tomlins P, editor. Characterisation and design of tissue scaffolds. Sawstone: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 75–103.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Parmaksiz M, Dogan A, Odabas S, Elçin AE, Elçin YM. Clinical applications of decellularized extracellular matrices for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biomed Mater. 2016;11:022003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. El-Hayek KM, Chand B. Biologic prosthetic materials for hernia repairs. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2010;20:159–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee EI, Chike-Obi CJ, Gonzalez P, Garza R, Leong M, Subramanian A, et al. Abdominal wall repair using human acellular dermal matrix: a follow-up study. Am J Surg. 2009;198:650–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hsu PW, Salgado CJ, Kent K, Finnegan M, Pello M, Simons R, et al. Evaluation of porcine dermal collagen (Permacol) used in abdominal wall reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:1484–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nie X, Xiao D, Wang W, Song Z, Yang Z, Chen Y, et al. Comparison of porcine small intestinal submucosa versus polypropylene in open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. D’Ambra L, Berti S, Feleppa C, Magistrelli P, Bonfante P, Falco E. Use of bovine pericardium graft for abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated fields. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;4:171–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smart NJ, Marshall M, Daniels IR. Biological meshes: a review of their use in abdominal wall hernia repairs. Surgeon. 2012;10:159–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148:544–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bryan N, Ahswin H, Smart N, Bayon Y, Wohlert S, Hunt JA. The in vivo evaluation of tissue-based biomaterials in a rat full-thickness abdominal wall defect model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014;102:709–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bondre IL, Holihan JL, Askenasy EP, Greenberg JA, Keith JN, Martindale RG, et al. Suture, synthetic, or biologic in contaminated ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2016;200:488–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Romain B, Story F, Meyer N, Delhorme JB, Brigand C, Rohr S. Comparative study between biologic porcine dermal meshes: risk factors of postoperative morbidity and recurrence. J Wound Care. 2016;25:320–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sbitany H, Kwon E, Chern H, Finlayson E, Varma MG, Hansen SL. Outcomes analysis of biologic mesh use for abdominal wall reconstruction in clean-contaminated and contaminated ventral hernia repair. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;75:201–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fischer JP, Basta MN, Krishnan NM, Wink JD, Kovach SJ. A cost-utility assessment of mesh selection in clean-contaminated ventral hernia repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:647–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Majumder A, Winder JS, Wen Y, Pauli EM, Belyansky I, Novitsky YW. Comparative analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh outcomes in contaminated hernia repairs. Surgery. 2016;160:828–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bochicchio GV, Jain A, McGonigal K, Turner D, Ilahi O, Reese S, et al. Biologic vs synthetic inguinal hernia repair: 1-year results of a randomized double-blinded trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:751–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, AA 97, La Julita, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia

    Julio C. Sánchez, Diana M. Díaz, Leidy V. Sánchez, Aníbal Valencia-Vásquez, Juan F. Quintero, Laura V. Muñoz, Álvaro Guerra & Juliana Buitrago

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia

    Andrés F. Bernal & Germán Osorio

Authors
  1. Julio C. Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana M. Díaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leidy V. Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aníbal Valencia-Vásquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Juan F. Quintero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura V. Muñoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrés F. Bernal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Germán Osorio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Álvaro Guerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Juliana Buitrago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JS, AG and JB contribute significantly to the conception and design of the study. JS, DD, LS, AV, JQ and LM performed decellularization experiments. AG and JB performed the surgical procedures. AV and JQ looked after the rabbit following surgery. AB and GO processed the histopathological samples and analyzed them. All the authors participated in the analysis and interpretation of data and provided intellectual content of critical importance. JS and DD drafted the article and all the other authors revised it and approved it.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julio C. Sánchez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

This study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, code CBE-SYR-132015.

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

Sánchez, J.C., Díaz, D.M., Sánchez, L.V. et al. Decellularization and In Vivo Recellularization of Abdominal Porcine Fascial Tissue. Tissue Eng Regen Med 18, 369–376 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-020-00314-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-020-00314-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation