Physicochemical characterisation and biological evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine engineered polyurethane (Tecoflex®)

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Bacterial adhesion and encrustation are the known causes for obstruction or blockage of urethral catheters and ureteral stents, which often hinders their effective use within the urinary tract. In this in vitro study, polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine (PVP-I) complex modified polyurethane (Tecoflex®) systems were created by physically entrapping the modifying species during the reversible swelling of the polymer surface region. The presence of the PVP-I molecules on this surfaces were verified by ATR-FTIR, AFM and SEM-EDAX analysis, while wettability of the films was investigated by water contact angle measurements. The modified surfaces were investigated for its suitability as a urinary tract biomaterial by comparing its lubricity and ability to resist bacterial adherence and encrustation with that of base polyurethane. The PVP-I modified polyurethane showed a nanopatterned surface topography and was highly hydrophilic and more lubricious than control polyurethane. Adherence of both the gram positive Staphylococcus aureus (by 86%; **P < 0.01) and gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa (by 80%; *P < 0.05) was significantly reduced on the modified surfaces. The deposition of struvite and hydroxyapatite the major components of urinary tract encrustations were significantly less on PVP-I modified polyurethane as compared to base polyurethane, especially reduction in hydroxyapatite encrustation was particularly marked. These results demonstrated that the PVP-I entrapment process can be applied on polyurethane in order to reduce/lower complications associated with bacterial adhesion and deposition of encrustation on polyurethanes.

Keywords

Contact Angle Polyurethane Water Contact Angle Bacterial Adhesion Ureteral Stents 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Anand P. Khandwekar would like to thank Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for providing Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) to pursue his doctoral studies.

Supplementary material

10856_2011_4285_MOESM1_ESM.doc (708 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 707 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tunney MM, Jones DS, Gorman SP. Assessment of biofilm and related problems associated with urinary medical devices. In: Doyle RJ, editor. Methods in enzymology: biofilms, vol. 310. Florida: Academic Press; 1999. p. 558–66.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gorman SP, Jones DS. Complications of urinary devices. In: Wilson M, editor. Medical implications of biofilms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. p. 136–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorman SP, Jones DS, Bonner MC, Akay M, Keane PF. Mechanical performance of polyurethane ureteral stents in vitro and ex vivo. Biomaterials. 1997;18:1379–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gorman SP, Jones DS, Bonner MC, Akay M, Keane PF. Mechanical performance of polyurethane ureteral stents in vitro and ex vivo. Biomaterials. 1997;18(20):1379–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zisman A, Siegel YI, Siegmann A, Lindner A. Spontaneous ureteral stent fragmentation. J Urol. 1995;153:718–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Sheriff A. Fracture of polyurethane double pigtail stents: an in vivo retrospective and prospective fluoroscopic study. Bri J Urol. 1995;76:108–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tunney MM, Keane PF, Jones DS, Gorman SP. Comparison of in vitro encrustation on ureteral stent biomaterials. Biomaterials. 1996;17(15):1541–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tunney MM, Gorman SP, Patricki S. Medical device-related infection. Revi Med Microbiol. 1996;7(4):195–210.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stickler D, Ganderton L, King J, Nettleton J, Winters C. Proteus mirabilis biofilms and encrustation of ureteral stents. Urol Res. 1993;21:407–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmes SAV, Miller PD, Crocker PR, Kirby RS. Encrustation of intraprostatic stents—a comparative study. Br J Urol 1992;69:383–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hedelin H, Bratt CG, Eckerdal G, Lincoln K. Relationship between urease producing bacteria, urinary pH and encrustation on indwelling urinary catheters. Br J Urol. 1991;67:527–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Squires B, Gillatt DA. Massive bladder calculus as a complication of a titanium prostatic stent. Br J Urol. 1995;75:252–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milroy E, Chapple CR. The UroLume stent in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 1993;150:1630–5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brehmer B, Marsden PO. Route and prophylaxis of ascending bladder infection in male patients with indwelling catheter. J Urol. 1972;108:719–21.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorman SP, Jones DS. Complications of urinary devices. In: Wilson M, editor. Medical implications of biofilms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. p. 136–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wironen J, Marrota J, Cohen M, Batich C. Materials used in urological devices. J Long Term Effects Med Implants. 1997;7:1–28.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cox AJ, Millington RS, Hukins DWL, Sutton TM. Resistance of catheters coated with modified hydrogel to encrustation during an in vitro test. Urol Res. 1989;17:353–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones DS, Garvin CP, Gorman SP. Design of a simulated urethra model for the quantitative assessment of urinary catheter lubricity. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12(1):15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hedelin I, Grenabo L, Pettersson S. Urease induced precipitation of phosphate salts in vitro on indwelling catheters made of different materials. Urol Res. 1991;19:297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liedberg H, Lundeberg T. Urease induced precipitation on latex and silver coated latex in vitro. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1991;138:239–40.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gorman SP, Tunney MM, Keane PF, Van Bladel K, Bley B. Characterisation and assessment of a novel poly(ethylene oxide)/polyurethane composite hydrogel (Aquavenes) as a ureteral stent biomaterial. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;39:642–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kristinsson KG. Adherence of staphylococci to intravascular catheters. J Med Microbiol. 1989;28:249–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bridgett MJ, Davies MC, Denyer SP, Eldridge PR. In vitro assessment of bacterial adhesion to hydromer-coated cerebrospinal-fluid shunts. Biomaterials. 1993;14:184–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jansen B, Goodman LP, Ruiten D. Bacterial adherence to hydrophilic polymer-coated polyurethane stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;39(5):670–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Francois P, Vaudaux P, Nurdin N, Mathieu HJ, Descouts P, Lew DP. Physical and biological effects of a surface coating procedure on polyurethane catheters. Biomaterials. 1996;17:667–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krasovskaya SM, Uzhinova LD, Andrianova MY, Prischenko AA, Livantsov MV. Biochemical and physico-chemical aspects of biomaterial calcification. Biomaterials. 1991;12:817–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Choong SKS, Wood S, Whitfield HN. A model to quantify encrustation on ureteric stents, urethral catheters and polymers intended for urological use. BJU Int. 2000;86:414–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khandwekar AP, Patil DP, Khandwekar V, Shouche YS, Sawant S, Doble M. TecoflexTM functionalization by curdlan and its effect on protein adsorption and bacterial and tissue cell adhesion. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009;20:1115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khandwekar AP, Patil DP, Shouche YS, Doble M. Controlling biological interactions with surface entrapment-modified polyurethane. J Med Biol Eng. 2009;29:84–91.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khandwekar AP, Patil DP, Shouche YS, Doble M. The biocompatibility of sulfobetaine engineered poly(ethylene terepthalate) by surface entrapment technique. J Biomater Appl. 2010;25(2):119–43. doi: 10.1177/0885328209344004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khandwekar AP, Patil DP,Shouche YS, Doble M. The biocompatibility of sulfobetaine engineered poly(methyl methacrylate) by surface entrapment technique. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2010;21(2):635–46. doi: 10.1007/s10856-009-3886-y.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khandwekar AP, Patil DP, Shouche YS, Doble M. Surface engineering of poly(caprolatone) by biomacromolecules and their blood compatibility. J Biomater Appl. 2010 (in press). doi: 10.1177/0885328210367442.
  33. 33.
    Khandwekar AP, Patil DP, Hardikar AA, Shouche YS, Doble M. In vivo modulation of foreign body response on polyurethane by surface entrapment technique. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2010;95A(2):413–23. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.32852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Russ IG. Energy dispersive X-ray analysis on, the scanning electron microscope, In: Energy dispersive X-ray analysis, pp. 154–179, STP, 485, American Society for Testing and 154, Philadelphia; 1971.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Egyhazi T, Scholtz J, Beskov VS. SEM-EDAX investigations of userelated microstructural changes in an ammonia synthesis catalyst. React Kinet Catal Lett. 1984;24:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Glu GB, Arica MY. Surface energy components of a dye-ligand immobilized pHEMA membranes: effects of their molecular attracting forces for non-covalent interactions with IgG and HSA in aqueous media. Int J Biol Macromol. 2005;37:249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bhat VT, James NR, Jayakrishnan A. A photochemical method for immobilization of azidated dextran onto aminated poly(ethylene terephthalate) surfaces. Polym Int. 2007;57:124–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bhagat PR, Pandey AK, Acharya R, Nair AGC, Rajurkar NS, Reddy AVR. Molecular iodine preconcentration and determination in aqueous samples using poly(vinylpyrrolidone) containing membranes. Talanta. 2008;74:1313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Min XC, Ping DJ, Tai YW. Synthesis of antibacterial polypropylene film with surface immobilized polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine complex. J Appl Polym Sci. 2005;97:2026–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marmieri G, Pettenati M, Cassinelli C, Morra M. Evaluation of slipperiness of catheter surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996;33(1):29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tunney MM, Gorman SP. Evaluation of a poly(vinyl pyrollidone)-coated biomaterial for urological use. Biomaterials. 2002;23:4601–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tunney MM, Banner MC, Keane PF, German SP. Development of a model for assessment of biomaterial encrustation in the upper urinary tract. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1025–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ovsepyan M, Kobyakov VV, Dubrovin VI, Panov VP. Determination of polyvinylpyrrolidone in aqueous solutions by infrared spectrophotometric and spectrofluorimetric methods. Khimiko-Farmatsevticheskii Zhurnal. 1978;12:121–4.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Qipeng G, Jinyu H, Li Xiaoqing. Miscibility of poly(n-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) with poly(hydroxyl ether of phenolphthalein) and polyacrylonitrile. Eur Polym J. 1996;32(4):423–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Qian X-f, Yin J, Feng S, Liu S, Zhu Z. Preparation and characterization of polyvinylpyrrolidone films containing silver sulfide nanoparticles. J Mater Chem. 2001;11:2504–6. doi: 10.1039/b103708k.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tunney MM, Gorman SP, Patrick S. Infection associated with prosthetic devices. Rev Med Microbiol. 1996;7(4):195–205.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marshall KC. Interfaces in microbial ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1976.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosenberg M. Bacterial adherence to polystyrene: a replica method of screening for bacterial hydrophobicity. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1981;42:375–7.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gorman SP. Microbial adherence and biofilm production. In: Denyer SP, Hugo WB, editors. Mechanisms of action of chemical biocides. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications Technical Services; 1991. p. 271–95.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ohkafwa M, Sugata T, Sawaki M, Nakashima T, Fuse H, Hisazumi H. Bacterial and crystal adherence to the surfaces of indwelling urethral catheters. J Urol. 1990;143(4):717–21.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stickler DJ, King J, Nettleton J, Winters C. The structure of urinary catheters encrusting bacterial biofilms. Cells Mater. 1993;3(3):315–20.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tunney MM, Keane PF, Gorman SP. Bacterial adherence to ureteral stent biomaterials. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1996;4(Suppl 1):S177.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tunney MM, Keane PF, Jones DS, Gorman SP. Comparative assessment of ureteral stent biomaterial encrustation. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1541–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gorman SP, McCafferty DF, Woolfson AD, Jones DS. A Comparative-study of the microbial anti-adherence capacities of 3 antimicrobial agents. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1987;12(6):393–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Van den Broek PJ, Daha TJ, Mouton RP. Bladder irrigation with povidine-iodine in prevention of urinary-tract infections associated with intermittent urethral catheterisation. Lancet. 1985;1:563–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gottardi W. The influence of the chemical behaviour of iodine on the germicidal action of disinfectant solutions containing iodine. J Hosp Infect. 1985;6:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Weiss E, Rosenberg M, Judes H, Rosenberg E. Cell-surface hydrophobicity of adherent oral bacteria. Curr Microbiol. 1982;7:125–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pijanowska A, Kaczorek E, Chrzanowski, Olszanowski A. Cell hydrophobicity of Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp. bacteria and hydrocarbon biodegradation in the presence of Quillaya saponin. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007;23:677–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gottenbos B, Busscher HJ, Van der Mei HC. Pathogenesis and prevention of biomaterial centered infections. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2002;13:717–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bruinsma GM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Bacterial adhesion to surface hydrophilic and hydrophobic contact lenses. Biomaterials. 2001;22:3217–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hildebrandt P, Sayyad M, Rzany A, Schaldach M, Seiter H. Prevention of surface encrustation of urological implants by coating with inhibitors. Biomaterials. 2001;22:503–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hildebrandt P, Rzany A, Bolz A, Schaldach M. Immobilisiertes Heparin als inkrustierungsresistente Beschichtung auf urologischen Implantaten. Biomed Technik. 1997;42:123–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Roberts JA, Fussell EN, Kaack MB. Bacterial adherence to urethral catheters. J Urol. 1990;144:264–9.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Miller JM. The effect of hydron on latex urinary catheters. J Urol. 1975;113:530.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Holmes S, Cheng C, Whitfield HN. The development of synthetic polymers that resist encrustation on exposure to urine. Br J Urol z992;69:651–5.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cormio L. Ureteric injuries. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995;171(Suppl):1–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations