Advertisement

Early morphological changes in tissues when replacing abdominal wall defects by bacterial nanocellulose in experimental trials

  • Andrey N. Zharikov
  • Vladimir G. Lubyansky
  • Evgenia K. Gladysheva
  • Ekaterina A. Skiba
  • Vera V. Budaeva
  • Elena N. Semyonova
  • Andrey A. Zharikov
  • Gennady V. Sakovich
Clinical Applications of Biomaterials Original Research
  • 113 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Clinical Applications of Biomaterials

Abstract

Experimental trials were done on five dogs to explore if an anterior abdominal wall defect could be repaired using wet (99.9%), compact BNC membranes produced by the Мedusomyces gisevii Sa-12 symbiotic culture. The abdominal wall defect was simulated by middle-midline laparotomy, and a BNC membrane was then fixed to open aponeurotic edges with blanket suture (Prolene 4-0, Ethicon). A comparative study was also done to reinforce the aponeurotic defect with both the BNC membrane and polypropylene mesh (PPM) (Ultrapro, Ethicon). The materials were harvested at 14 and 60 days postoperative to visually evaluate their location in the abdominal tissues and evaluate the presence of BNC and PPM adhesions to the intestinal loops, followed by histologic examination of the tissue response to these prosthetics. The BNC exhibited good fixation to the anterior abdominal wall to form on the 14th day a capsule of loose fibrin around the BNC. Active reparative processes were observed at the BNC site at 60 days post-surgery to generate new, stable connective-tissue elements (macrophages, giant cells, fibroblasts, fibrin) and neocapillaries. Negligible intraperitoneal adhesions were detected between the BNC and the intestinal loops as compared to the case of PPM. There were no suppurative complications throughout the postsurgical period. We noticed on the 60th day after the BNC placement that collagenous elements and new capillary vessels were actively formed in the abdominal wall tissues, generating a dense postoperative cicatrix whose intraperitoneal adhesions to the intestinal loops were insignificant compared to the PPM graft.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research on biosynthesis of bacterial nanocellulose was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Project # 17-19-01054).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Animal studies were performed with the approval of the local Ethics Committee of the Altai State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. The methodology for using bacterial nanocellulose to replace defects of the anterior abdominal wall in animal experiments passed expert evaluation at a meeting of the Ethics Committee of the Altai State Medical University (Barnaul city, Russia). The Committee discussed the experimental study design and animal care to conform to the accepted international standards and guidelines. All the Ethics Committee members (100%) unanimously approved this study.

Human and animal rights

Dogs were housed and maintained in accordance with international standards on animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment (European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, Strasbourg, 1986).

References

  1. 1.
    Stoikes NFN, Scott JR, Badhwar A, Deeken CR, Voeller GR. Characterization of host response, resorption, and strength properties, and performance in the presence of bacteria for fully absorbable biomaterials for soft tissue repair. Hernia. 2017;21:771–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coda A, Lamberti R, Martorana S. Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial. Hernia. 2012;16:9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vogels RRM, Kaufmann R, van den Hil LCL, van Steensel S, Schreinemacher MHF, Lange JF, Bouvy ND. Critical overview of all available animal models for abdominal wall hernia research. Hernia. 2017;21:667–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Todros S, Pavan PG, Pachera P, Natali AN. Synthetic surgical meshes used in abdominal wall surgery: Part I—materials and structural conformation. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2017;105:892–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falcão SC, Coelho AR, Evêncio Neto J. Biomechanical evaluation of microbial cellulose (Zoogloea sp.) and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes as implants in repair of produced abdominal wall defects in rats. Acta Cir Bras. 2008;23:184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dahman Y. Nanostructured biomaterials and biocomposites from bacterial cellulose nanofibers. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2009;9:5105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lima FMT, Pinto FCM, Andrade-da-Costa BLS, Silva JGM, Campos Júnior O, Andrade Aguiar JL. Biocompatible bacterial cellulose membrane in dural defect repair of rat. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2017;28:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silveira RK, Coelho ARB, Pinto FCM, Albuquerque AV, Melo Filho A, Andrade Aguiar JL. Bioprosthetic mesh of bacterial cellulose for treatment of abdominal muscle aponeurotic defect in rat model. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016;27:129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiegand C, Moritz S, Hessler N, Kralisch D, Wesarg F, Müller F, Fischer D, Hipler UC. Antimicrobial functionalization of bacterial nanocellulose by loading with polihexanide and povidone-iodine. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26:245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saska S, Barud HS, Gaspar AMM, Marchetto R, Ribeiro SJL, Messaddeq Y. Bacterial cellulose-hydroxyapatite nanocomposites for bone regeneration. Int J Biomater. 2011;2011:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klemm D, Schumann D, Udhard U, Marsch S. Bacterial synthesized cellulose: artificial blood vessels for microsurgery. Prog Polym Sci. 2001;26:1561–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown EE, Laborie MPG, Zhang J. Glutaraldehyde treatment of bacterial cellulose/fibrin composites: Impact on morphology, tensile and viscoelastic properties. Cellulose. 2012;19:127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wippermann J, Schumann D, Klemm D, Kosmehl H, Salehi-Gelani S, Wahlers T. Preliminary results of small arterial substitute performed with a new cylindrical biomaterial composed of bacterial cellulose. Eur J Vasc Endovasc. 2009;37:592–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schumann D, Wippermann J, Klemm D, Kramer F, Koth D, Kosmehl H, Wahlers T, Salehi-Gelani S. Artificial vascular implants from bacterial cellulose: Preliminary results of small arterial substitutes. Cellulose. 2009;16:877–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fink H, Faxalv L, Molnár GF, Drotz K, Risberg B, Lindahl TL, Sellborn A. Real-time measurements of coagulation on bacterial cellulose and conventional vascular graft materials. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:1125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Czaja W, Krystynowicz A, Kawecki M, Wysota K, Sakiel S, Wróblewski P, Glik J, Nowak M, Bielecki S. Biomedical applications of microbial cellulose in burn wound recovery. In: Malcolm Brown Jr. R, Saxena IM, editos. Cellulose: molecular and structural biology. Berlin: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fu L, Zhang J, Yang G. Present status and applications of bacterial cellulose-based materials for skin tissue repair. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;92:1432–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nimeskern L, Avila HM, Sundberg J, Gatenholm P, Müller R, Stok KS. Mechanical evaluation of bacterial nanocellulose as an implant material for ear cartilage replacement. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;22:12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kowalska-Ludwicka K, Cala J, Grobelski B, Sygut D, Jesionek-Kupnicka D, Kolodziejczyk M, Bielecki S, Pasieka Z. Modified bacterial cellulose tubes for regeneration of damaged peripheral nerves. Arch Med Sci. 2013;9:527–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Portal O, Clark WA, Levinson DJ. Microbial cellulose wound dressing in the treatment of nonhealing lower extremity ulcers. Wounds. 2009;21:1–3.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solway DR, Clark WA, Levinson DJ. A parallel open-label trial to evaluate microbial cellulose wound dressing in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 2011;8:69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosen CL, Steinberg GK, DeMonte F, Delashaw JB Jr, Lewis SB, Shaffrey ME, Aziz K, Hantel J, Marciano FF. Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial evaluating a biosynthesized cellulose graft for repair of dural defects. Neurosurgery. 2011;69:1093–103.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fonte JBM, Valido DP, Filho LX, Manzine Costa LM, Olyveira GM, Melo MFB, Albuquerque RLC Jr. Otoliths/bacterial cellulose nanocomposite as a potential dental pulp capping biomaterial in canine model. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;120:e105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amorim WL, Costa HO, Souza FC, Castro MG, Silva L. Estudo experimental da resposta tecidual à presença de celulose produzida por Acetobacter xylinum no dorso nasal de coelhos. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75:200–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jia H, Jia YY, Wang J, Hu Y, Zhang Y, Jia S. Potentiality of bacterial cellulose as the scaffold of tissue engineering of cornea. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics (BMEI ‘09), 17–19 Oct. Tianjin, China; IEEE Press (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers); 2009.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stoica-Guzun A, Stroescu M, Tache F, Zaharescu T, Grosu E. Effect of electron beam irradiation on bacterial cellulose membranes used as transdermal drug delivery systems. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B. 2007;265:434–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Trovatti E, Silva NH, Duarte IF, Rosado CF, Almeida IF, Costa P, Freire CSR, Silvestre AJD, Neto CP. Biocellulose membranes as supports for dermal release of lidocaine. Biomacromolecules. 2011;12:4162–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Müller A, Ni Z, Hessler N, Wesarg F, Müller FA, Kralisch D, Fischer D. The biopolymer bacterial nanocellulose as drug delivery system: investigation of drug loading and release using the model protein albumin. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102:579–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maria LCS, Santos ALC, Oliveira PC, Valle ASS, Hernane S, Barud HS, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJL. [Preparation and antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles impregnated in bacterial cellulose]. Polim: Cienc e Tecnol. 2010;20:72–77.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sakovich GV, Skiba EA, Budaeva VV, Gladysheva EK, Aleshina LA. Technological fundamentals of bacterial nanocellulose production from zero prime-cost feedstock. Dokl Biochem Biophys. 2017;477:357–9.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1607672917060047. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrey N. Zharikov
    • 1
  • Vladimir G. Lubyansky
    • 1
  • Evgenia K. Gladysheva
    • 2
  • Ekaterina A. Skiba
    • 2
  • Vera V. Budaeva
    • 2
  • Elena N. Semyonova
    • 3
  • Andrey A. Zharikov
    • 1
  • Gennady V. Sakovich
    • 2
  1. 1.Chair of Neymark Departmental Surgery and Hospital SurgeryAltai State Medical UniversityBarnaulRussia
  2. 2.Bioconversion Laboratory, Institute for Problems of Chemical and Energetic TechnologiesSiberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IPCET SB RAS)BiyskRussia
  3. 3.Anatomical Pathology DepartmentAltai Krai Clinical HospitalBarnaulRussia

Personalised recommendations