Selected Aspects of Cell and Molecular Biology of In Vivo Biocompatibility

  • Roger E. Marchant
  • Kathleen M. Miller
  • Anne Hiltner
  • James M. Anderson


The biocompatibility of an implanted material or prosthetic device is a dynamic and two-way process that involves the time dependent effects of the host on the material and the material on the host. The implantation of any synthetic material initiates a wound healing mechanism that is characterized by the inflammatory response. However, the inflammatory response itself involves complex and highly regulated interactions between specific cells and various molecular mediators. An understanding of these interactions which occur following biomaterial implantation has been hindered by the difficulty in quantifying the cellular and biological events.


Giant Cell Foreign Body Reaction Foreign Body Giant Cell Implantation Time Empty Cage 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R.E. Marchant, A. Hiltner, C. Hamlin, A. Rabinovitch, R. Slobodkin and J.M. Anderson, In vivo biocompatibility. I. The cage implant system and a biodegradable hydrogel. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. , 17: 301 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.M. Anderson, R.E. Marchant, S. Suzuki, K. Phua, C. Hamlin, A. Rabinovitch and A. Hiltner, In vivo biocompatibility studies. IV. Biomer® and the acute inflammatory response, in: “Polyurethanes in Medicine”, H. Planck, editor, in press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.M. Anderson, R.E. Marchant and M. McClurken, Tissue response to drug delivery systems: the cage implant system, in: “Long-Acting Contraceptive Delivery Systems”, G.I. Zatuchni et al., editors, Harper and Row, Inc., New York, in press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.W. Castor, Autocoid regulation of wound healing, in: “Tissue Repair and Regeneration”, L.E. Glynn, editor, Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, New York (1981).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.G. Wright and J.I. Gallin, Secretory response of human neutrophils: exocytosis of specific (secondary) granules by human neutrophils during adherence in vitro and during exudation in vivo. J. Immunol. , 123: 285 (1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.M. Henson, Mechanisms of exocytosis in phagocytic inflammatory cells. Am. J. Pathol. , 101: 494 (1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.E. Marchant and J.M. Anderson, unpublished results.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.S. Sundomo and O. Götze, Human monocyte spreading induced by Factor Bb of the alternative pathway of complement activation. J. Exp. Med. , 154: 763 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I.M. Goldstein and H.D. Perez, Biologically active peptides derived from the fifth component of complement, in: “Progress in Hemostasis and Thrombosis”, Volume 5, T.M. Spaet, editor, Grune and Stratton, New York (1980).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.P. Hartung and U. Hadding, Complement components in relation to macrophage function. Agents and Actions , 13: 415 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T.M. Hering, R.E. Marchant and J.M. Anderson, Type V collagen during granulation tissue development. Exp. Molec. Pathol. , 39: 219 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T.J. Chambers, Fusion of macrophages following simultaneous attempted phagocytosis of glutaraldehyde-fixed red cells. J. Pathol. , 122: 71 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.R. Murch, M.D. Grounds, C.A. Marshall and J.M. Papadimitriou, Direct evidence that inflammatory multinucleated giant cells form by fusion. J. Pathol. , 137: 177 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger E. Marchant
    • 1
  • Kathleen M. Miller
    • 1
  • Anne Hiltner
    • 1
  • James M. Anderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Pathology and Macromolecular ScienceCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations