Skip to main content

Characterization of the foreign body response to common surgical biomaterials in a murine model

European Journal of Plastic Surgery volume 40, pages 383–392 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Implanted biomaterials are subject to a significant reaction from the host, known as the foreign body response (FBR). We quantified the FBR to five materials following subcutaneous implantation in mice.

Methods

Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and silicone sheets are considered highly biocompatible biomaterials and were cut into 8-mm-diameter disks. Expanded PTFE (ePTFE) and polypropylene are also widely used biocompatible biomaterials and were cut into 2 cm-long cylinders. Cotton was selected as a negative control material that would invoke an intense FBR, was cut into disks, and implanted. The implants were inserted subcutaneously into female C57BL/6 mice. On post-implantation days 14, 30, 60, 90, and 180, implants were retrieved. Cellularity was assessed with DAPI stain, collagen with Masson’s trichrome stain, mast cells with toluidine blue, macrophages with F4/80 immunohistochemical stain, and capsular thickness and foreign body giant cells with hematoxylin and eosin.

Results

DAPI revealed a significantly increased cellularity in both PVA and silicone, and ePTFE had the lowest cell density. Silicone showed the lowest cellularity at day 14 and day 90, whereas ePTFE showed the lowest cellularity at days 30, 60, and 180. Masson’s trichrome staining demonstrated no apparent difference in collagen. Toluidine blue showed no differences in mast cells. There were, however, fewer macrophages associated with ePTFE. On day 14, PVA had highest number of macrophages, whereas polypropylene had the highest number at all time points after d14. Giant cells increased earlier and gradually decreased later. On day 90, PVA exhibited a significantly increased number of giant cells compared to polypropylene and silicone. Silicone consistently formed the thinnest capsule throughout all time points. On day 14, cotton had formed the thickest capsule. On day 30, polypropylene gas formed the thickest capsule, and on days 60, 90, and 180, PVA had formed the thickest capsule.

Conclusions

These data reveal differences in capsule thickness and cellular response in an implant-related manor, indicating that fibrotic reactions to biomaterials are implant-specific and should be carefully considered when performing studies on fibrosis when biomaterials are being used.

Level of Evidence: Not ratable

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Sprugel KH, McPherson JM, Clowes AW, Ross R (1987) Effects of growth factors in vivo. I. Cell ingrowth into porous subcutaneous chambers. Am J Pathol 129:601–613

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT (2008) Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol 20:86–100

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avula M, Rao AN, McGill LD, Grainger DW, Solzbacher F (2014) Foreign body response to subcutaneous biomaterial implants in a mast cell-deficient Kit(w-Sh) murine model. Acta Biomater 10(5):1856–1863

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nichols SP, K Ahyeon, LB Nga, et al (2012) The effect of nitric oxide surface flux on the foreign body response to subcutaneous implants. Biomaterials 33:6305–6312

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McNally AK, Jones JA, Macewan SR, Colton E, Anderson JM (2008) Vitronectin is a critical protein adhesion substrate for IL-4-induced foreign body giant cell formation. J Biomed Mater Res A 86:535–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Xie Z1, Paras CB, Weng H et al (2013) Dual growth factor releasing multi-functional nanofibers for wound healing. Acta Biomater 9:9351–9359

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davidson JM (1998) Animal models for wound repair. Arch Dermatol Res 290 Suppl:S1–11

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Alfaro MP, Vincent A, Saraswati S et al (2010) sFRP2 suppression of bone morphogenic protein (BMP) and Wnt signaling mediates mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) self-renewal promoting engraftment and myocardial repair. J Biol Chem 285:35645–35653

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Andrade SP, Ferreira MA (2009) The sponge implant model of angiogenesis. Methods Mol Biol 467:295–304

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walluscheck KP, Bierkandt S, Brandt M, Cremer J (2005) Infrainguinal ePTFE vascular graft with bioactive surface heparin bonding. First clinical results. J Cardiovasc Surg 46:425–430

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Adzick NS, Harrison MR, Glick PL et al (1985) Comparison of fetal, newborn, and adult wound healing by histologic, enzyme-histochemical, and hydroxyproline determinations. J Pediatr Surg 20:315–319

  12. Goodson WH 3rd, Hunt TK (1986) Wound collagen accumulation in obese hyperglycemic mice. Diabetes 35:491–495

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodson WH, Lopez SA, Jensen JA et al (1987) The influence of a brief preoperative illness on postoperative healing. Ann Surg 205:250–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Orenstein SB, Saberski ER, Kreutzer DL, Novitsky YW (2012) Comparative analysis of histopathologic effects of synthetic meshes based on material, weight, and pore size in mice. J Surg Res 176:423–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Junge K, Binnebösel M, von Trotha KT et al (2012) Mesh biocompatibility: effects of cellular inflammation and tissue remodelling. Langenbeck’s archives of surgery/Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie 397:255–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rassaert CL, Dipasquale G, O’Donoghue S (1975) The evaluation of cotton twine as a new anti-inflammatory assay. Agents and actions 5:128–132

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heggers JP, Kossovsky N, Parsons RW et al (1983) Biocompatibility of silicone implants. Ann Plast Surg 11:38–45

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Franca DC, de Castro AL, Soubhia AM, de Aguiar SM, Goiato MC (2013) Evaluation of the biocompatibility of silicone gel implants— histomorphometric study. Acta Inform Med 21:93–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. França DC, de Castro AL, Soubhia AM et al (2011) Biocompatibility evaluation of 3 facial silicone elastomers. J Craniofac Surg 22:837–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Olbrich KC, Meade R, Bruno W et al (2005) Halofuginone inhibits collagen deposition in fibrous capsules around implants. Ann Plast Surg 54:293–296 discussion 296

  21. Morehead JM, Holt GR (1994) Soft-tissue response to synthetic biomaterials. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 27:195–201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ziats NP, Miller KM, Anderson JM (1988) In vitro and in vivo interactions of cells with biomaterials. Biomaterials 9:5–13

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tang L, Jennings TA, Eaton JW (1998) Mast cells mediate acute inflammatory responses to implanted biomaterials. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:8841–8846

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zdolsek J, Eaton JW, Tang L (2007) Histamine release and fibrinogen adsorption mediate acute inflammatory responses to biomaterial implants in humans. J Transl Med 5:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Carr BJ, Ochoa L, Rankin D, Owens BD (2009) Biologic response to orthopedic sutures: a histologic study in a rabbit model. Orthopedics 32:828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Anderson JM (2000) Multinucleated giant cells. Curr Opin Hematol 7:40–47

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ratner BD (2002) Reducing capsular thickness and enhancing angiogenesis around implant drug release systems. J Control Release 78:211–218

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rompen E, Domken O, Degidi M, Pontes AE, Piattelli A (2006) The effect of material characteristics, of surface topography and of implant components and connections on soft tissue integration: a literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(Suppl 2):55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Gloria Adcock for her assistance with the tissue processing.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Mohamed Ibrahim, Jennifer Bond, Manuel A. Medina, Carlos Quiles, George Kokosis, Latif Bashirov, Bruce Klitzman & Howard Levinson

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Bruce Klitzman & Howard Levinson

  3. Department of Burn Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Lei Chen

Authors
  1. Mohamed Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Bond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel A. Medina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos Quiles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. George Kokosis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Latif Bashirov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bruce Klitzman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Howard Levinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Howard Levinson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Mohamed Ibrahim, Jennifer Bond, Manuel A. Medina, Lei Chen, Carlos Quiles, George Kokosis, Latif Bashirov, Bruce Klitzman and Howard Levinson declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, K08 GM 085562-05.

Ethical approval

All animal procedures were performed in accordance with an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol approved by the Duke University. All applicable international and national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibrahim, M., Bond, J., Medina, M.A. et al. Characterization of the foreign body response to common surgical biomaterials in a murine model. Eur J Plast Surg 40, 383–392 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-017-1308-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-017-1308-9

Keywords

  • Implants
  • Biocompatibility
  • Fibrosis
  • PVA
  • ePTFE
  • Prolene
  • Polypropylene