Advertisement

Journal of Artificial Organs

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 204–211 | Cite as

Safety evaluation of surgical materials by cytotoxicity testing

  • Bayar Hexig
  • Ryusuke Nakaoka
  • Toshie TsuchiyaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The cytotoxicity of three kinds of commercially available absorbable hemostats [oxidized cellulose (Surgicel, gauze and cotton types), microfibrillar collagen (Avitene), and cotton-type collagen (Integran)] and one adhesion barrier [sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethyl-cellulose membrane (Seprafilm)] were comparatively assessed by a colony assay using V79 cells and a minimum essential medium (MEM) elution assay in combination with a neutral red assay using L929 cells. Strong cytotoxicity was detected for Surgicel by both the MEM elution assay and the colony assay. For Avitene, both methods revealed weak cytotoxicity. For Seprafilm, no cytotoxicity was detected by the MEM elution assay, while a moderate degree of cytotoxicity was observed in the colony assay. For Integran cytotoxicity was not detected by either the MEM elution or the colony assay. The results of the different methods showed some inconsistency in terms of the degree of cytotoxicity of the materials. It is proposed that the combination of two or more sensitive cytotoxicity testing methods for the evaluation of biomaterials is necessary to avoid false-negative results for biomaterials at the preclinical stage. Furthermore, investigation of the correlation between the cytotoxicity and the extraction period of the surgical materials is helpful for predicting the effect of prolonged in vivo use of biomaterials on surrounding cells, tissues, and organs.

Key words

Safety evaluation Surgical materials MEM elution assay Colony assay 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tsuchiya T, Ikarashi Y, Hata H, Toyoda K, Takahashi M, Uchima T, Tanaka N, Sasaki T, Nakamura A. Comparative studies of the toxicity of standard reference materials in various cytotoxicity tests and in vivo implantation tests. J Appl Biomater 1993;4:153–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kooten van TG, Klein LC, Wagner M, Kirkpatrick JC. Focal adhesion and assessment of cytotoxicity. J Biomed Mater Res 1999;46:33–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nappi JF, Lehman JA. The effect of Surgicel on bone formation. Cleft Palate J 1980;17:291–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibarrola JL, Bjorenson JE, Austin BP, Gerstein H. Osseous reactions to three hemostatic agents. J Endodont 1985;11:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matthew IR, Browne RM, Frame JW, Millar BG. Subperiosteal behavior of alginate and cellulose wound dressing materials. Biomaterials 1995;16:75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krishnan LK, Mohanty M, Umashankar PR, Lal AV. Comparative evaluation of absorbable hemostats: advantages of fibrin-based sheets. Biomaterials 2004;24:5557–5563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dutton JJ, Tse DT, Anderson RL. Compressive optic neuropathy following use of intracranial oxidized cellulose hemostat. Ophthal Surg 1983;14:487–490Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Inoue M, Uchida K, Miki C, Kusunoki M. Efficacy of Seprafilm for reducing reoperative risk in pediatric patients undergoing abdominal surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2005;40:1301–1306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tomizawa Y, Komori M, Takada K, Nishida H, Endo M, Kurosawa H. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the biocompatibility and cytotoxicity of local hemostatic agents. Jpn J Cardiovasc Surg 2004;33:382–386Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Tsuchiya T, Arai T, Ohhashi J, Imai K, Kokima H, Miyamoto S, Hata H, Ikarashi Y, Toyoda K, Takahashi M, Nakamura A. Rabbit eye irritation caused by wearing toxic contact lenses and their cytotoxicities: in vivo/in vitro correlation study using standard reference materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1993;27:885–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society for Artificial Organs 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Medical DevicesNational Institute of Health SciencesTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations