Immunological Response to Biodegradable Magnesium Implants
- 500 Downloads
The use of biodegradable magnesium implants in pediatric trauma surgery would render surgical interventions for implant removal after tissue healing unnecessary, thereby preventing stress to the children and reducing therapy costs. In this study, we report on the immunological response to biodegradable magnesium implants—as an important aspect in evaluating biocompatibility—tested in a growing rat model. The focus of this study was to investigate the response of the innate immune system to either fast or slow degrading magnesium pins, which were implanted into the femoral bones of 5-week-old rats. The main alloying element of the fast-degrading alloy (ZX50) was Zn, while it was Y in the slow-degrading implant (WZ21). Our results demonstrate that degrading magnesium implants beneficially influence the immune system, especially in the first postoperative weeks but also during tissue healing and early bone remodeling. However, rodents with WZ21 pins showed a slightly decreased phagocytic ability during bone remodeling when the degradation rate reached its maximum. This may be due to the high release rate of the rare earth-element yttrium, which is potentially toxic. From our results we conclude that magnesium implants have a beneficial effect on the innate immune system but that there are some concerns regarding the use of yttrium-alloyed magnesium implants, especially in pediatric patients.
KeywordsMagnesium Alloy Innate Immune System Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nail Phagocytic Ability Biodegradable Implant
The authors acknowledge support from the Laura Bassi Center of Expertise BRIC (Bioresorbable Implants for Children; FFG—Austria). The authors would also like to thank Ms. Katharina Angerpointer (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Austria) and Ms. Verena Krischnan for their help with collection and workup of the blood specimens.
- 14.P.A. Lalor, P.A. Revell, A.B. Gray, S. Wright, G.T. Railton, and M.A. Freeman, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 73, 25 (1991).Google Scholar
- 19.L. Wang, J. Mao, G.H. Zhang, and M.J. Tu, World J. Gastroenterol. 7, 4011 (2007).Google Scholar
- 23.W. Hirt, T. Nebe, and C. Birr, Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 106, 250 (1994).Google Scholar
- 26.H.R. Bakhsheshi-Rad, M.R.A. Kadir, M.H. Idris, and S. Farahany, Corrosion Science Conference Proceedings (2012).Google Scholar
- 27.A.C. Hänzi, A.S. Sologubenko, and P.J. Uggowitzer, Materials Science Forum Conference Proceedings (2009).Google Scholar
- 28.M. Yamasaki, K. Nyu, and Y. Kawamura, Materials Science Forum Conference Proceedings (2003).Google Scholar
- 43.T. Rae, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 57, 444 (1975).Google Scholar
- 45.S.K. Butcher, H. Chahal, L. Nayak, A. Sinclair, N.V. Henriquez, E. Sapey, D. O’Mahony, and J.M. Lord, J. Leukoc. Biol. 70, 881 (2001).Google Scholar
- 50.C.T. Horovitz, Biochemistry of Scandium and Yttrium, Part 2: Biochemistry and Applications (Biochemistry of the Elements), 1st ed. (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000), pp. 83–136 and pp. 208–210Google Scholar
- 51.S. Hirano and K.T. Suzuki, Environ. Health Perspect. 104, 85 (1996).Google Scholar
- 52.W.H. Wells and V.L. Wells, Patty’s Toxicology (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2000).Google Scholar