Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tissue response to a new type of biomaterial implanted subcutaneously in rats

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 10 February 2011

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

A new type of resorbable biomaterial intended for pelvic reconstruction was tested with respect to tissue regeneration and biocompatibility in rats. The biomaterial consisted of methoxypolyethyleneglycol-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (MPEG-PLGA). Implants were pure, enriched with extra-cellular matrix (ECM) or estrogen.

Methods

Ten implants of each type were tested for 3 and 8 weeks, respectively. Histological assessment of connective tissue organization, inflammation, vascularization, and thickness of regenerated tissue was undertaken.

Results

All implants had a high degree of biocompatibility. ECM-enriched implants had significantly higher inflammatory scores compared to pure implants at 3 weeks. At 8 weeks, neither of the parameters differed significantly. No trace of the implants remained.

Conclusions

The MPEG-PLGA is highly biocompatible, degrades quickly, and seems inert in the process of tissue regeneration. Thus, it is hardly a candidate per se in reinforcement of pelvic reconstruction, but it could have a future role as carrier for stem cells.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

MPEG-PLGA:

Methoxypolyethyleneglycol-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)

PLGA:

Polyglactin (poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid))

ECM:

Extra-cellular matrix

References

  1. Adekanmi OA et al (2009) Do the anatomical defects associated with cystocoele affect the outcome of anterior repair? A clinical and radiological study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1369–1377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jia X et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 115:1350–1361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones K, Feola A, Meyn L, Abramowitch S, Moalli P (2009) Tensile properties of commonly used prolapse meshes. Int Urogynecol J 20:847–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Murphy M (2009) Use of mesh and materials in pelvic floor surgery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 36:615–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blandon RE, Gebhart JB, Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ (2009) Complications from vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:523–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Deprest J et al (2006) The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 17:16–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baessler K, Maher CF (2006) Mesh augmentation during pelvic-floor reconstructive surgery: risks and benefits. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 18:560–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Falconer C, Soderberg M, Blomgren B, Ulmsten U (2001) Influence of different sling materials on connective tissue metabolism in stress urinary incontinent women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12(Suppl 2):S19–S23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kavvadias T, Kaemmer D, Klinge U, Kuschel S, Schuessler B (2009) Foreign body reaction in vaginally eroded and noneroded polypropylene suburethral slings in the female: a case series. Int Urogynecol J 20:1473–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Allahdin S, Glazener C, Bain C (2008) A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin mesh, polydioxanone and polyglactin sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:427–431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sand PK et al (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1357–1362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lind M, Larsen A, Clausen C, Osther K, Everland H (2008) Cartilage repair with chondrocytes in fibrin hydrogel and MPEG polylactide scaffold: an in vivo study in goats. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:690–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen CC, Ridgeway B, Paraiso MF (2007) Biologic grafts and synthetic meshes in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 50:383–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moalli PA et al (2004) Impact of menopause on collagen subtypes in the arcus tendineous fasciae pelvis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:620–627

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moalli PA, Debes KM, Meyn LA, Howden NS, Abramowitch SD (2008) Hormones restore biomechanical properties of the vagina and supportive tissues after surgical menopause in young rats. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:161–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM (2006) Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology 147:61–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith P (1993) Estrogens and the urogenital tract. Studies on steroid hormone receptors and a clinical study on a new estradiol-releasing vaginal ring. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 157:1–26

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Higgins EW et al (2009) Effect of estrogen replacement on the histologic response to polypropylene mesh implanted in the rabbit vagina model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201:505–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boulanger L et al (2008) Development of an animal model to study meshes used in genital prolapse surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 136:254–259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Krause HG, Galloway SJ, Khoo SK, Lourie R, Goh JT (2006) Biocompatible properties of surgical mesh using an animal model. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 46:42–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Riccetto C et al (2008) Impact of the structure of polypropylene meshes in local tissue reaction: in vivo stereological study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1117–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Huffaker RK et al (2008) Histologic response of porcine collagen-coated and uncoated polypropylene grafts in a rabbit vagina model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:582–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pierce LM et al (2009) Long-term histologic response to synthetic and biologic graft materials implanted in the vagina and abdomen of a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:546–546

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rubod Cl et al (2008) Biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue: preliminary results. Int Urogynecol J 19:811–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ho MH et al (2009) Stimulating vaginal repair in rats through skeletal muscle-derived stem cells seeded on small intestinal submucosal scaffolds. Obstet Gynecol 114:300–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Konstantinovic ML et al (2007) Tensile strength and host response towards different polypropylene implant materials used for augmentation of fascial repair in a rat model. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:619–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Khouw IM et al (2000) The foreign body reaction to a biodegradable biomaterial differs between rats and mice. J Biomed Mater Res 52:439–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Altman D, Mellgren A, Zetterstrom J (2005) Rectocele repair using biomaterial augmentation: current documentation and clinical experience. Obstet Gynecol Surv 60:753–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the animal care staff at the Panum Institute for their assistance in management of anesthesia and husbandry of the rats used in this study as well as Ms Tina Romme for technical assistance.

This study was supported by the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation.

Conflicts of interest

L.F. Nielsen and H. Everland are employees of Coloplast.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Marie Boennelycke & Gunnar Lose

  2. Department of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Lise Christensen

  3. Coloplast A/S, Humlebaek, Denmark

    Lene Feldskov Nielsen & Hanne Everland

Authors
  1. Marie Boennelycke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lise Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lene Feldskov Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanne Everland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gunnar Lose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Boennelycke.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1371-x

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boennelycke, M., Christensen, L., Nielsen, L.F. et al. Tissue response to a new type of biomaterial implanted subcutaneously in rats. Int Urogynecol J 22, 191–196 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1257-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1257-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation