Polymers in Medicine

Polim. Med.
Scopus CiteScore: 3.5 (CiteScore Tracker 3.6)
Index Copernicus (ICV 2023) – 121.14
MEiN – 70
ISSN 0370-0747 (print)
ISSN 2451-2699 (online) 
Periodicity – biannual

Download PDF

Polymers in Medicine

2016, vol. 46, nr 2, July-December, p. 135–143

doi: 10.17219/pim/68618

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Histological Evaluation of the Local Soft Tissue Reaction After Implanting Resorbable and Non-resorbable Monofilament Fibers

Bogusława Żywicka1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Maria Szymonowicz1,A,C,F, Danuta Bryła1,A,B,C,F, Zbigniew Rybak1,A,E,F

1 Department of Experimental Surgery and Biomaterials Research, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland

Abstract

Background. The development of technologies and scientific disciplines connected with medical implantation devices is dynamically affecting modern treatments by contemporary medicine and veterinary medicine; it also entails a need to monitor their impact on living organisms.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to conduct a comparative histological evaluation of the response of soft tissues after implanting monofilament fibers from resorbable glyconate and from non-resorbable polypropylene (PP) and polyamide (PA) in rats.
Material and Methods. Non-resorbable polyamide-based fibers were applied to skin anastomoses in rats. Macroscopic and histological evaluations were performed on the 7th, 14th and 30th days. Non-resorbable polypropylene fibers and resorbable glyconate fibers (composed of 72% glycolide, 14% trimethylene carbonate and 4% caprolactone) were implanted in muscle tissue for periods of 7, 14, 30 and 90 days.
Results. A semi-quantitative and qualitative histological evaluation found different dynamics and degrees of intensification of cell and tissue response around the resorbable and non-resorbable fibers being tested. The resorption process of the glyconate threads caused a prolonged inflammatory cellular response compared to the non-resorbable threads; it passed, however, without the participation of giant cells. Around the non-resorbable threads the observed cellular response was less intensified, with the formation of single polymorphonuclear macrophages around the PP threads, along with a stronger degree of fibrosis and the presence of fatty infiltrate.
Conclusion. During the early period, moderately intensified inflammatory cell response with the presence of single giant cells was observed around the non-degradable PA and PP fibers. In the late period, a band of fibrous connective tissue was present around the PP threads. Glyconate fibers underwent fragmentation and the process of resorption, which was associated with a weakly intensified inflammatory process lasting up to 90 days after implantation.

Key words

histological evaluation, biocompatibility, resorbable and non-resorbable fibers

References (20)

  1. Papazoglou L.G., Tsioli V., Papaioannou N., Georgiadis M., Savvas I., Prassinos N., Kouti V., Bikiaris D., Hadzigiannakis C., Zavros N.: Comparison of absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures for intradermal skin closure in cats. Can. Vet. J. 2010, 51(7), 770–772.
  2. PN-EN ISO 10993 Biological evaluation of medical devices.
  3. Al-Qattan M.M., Al-Zahrani K., Kfoury H., Al-Qattan N.M., Al-Thunayan T.A.: A delayed foreign body granuloma associated with polypropylene sutures used in tendon transfer. A case report. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2016, 26, 118–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.07.042. Epub 2016 Jul 28
  4. Frey-Köppel A.: Requirements for the admission of medical products made of NiTinol according to the German Medical Products Act (MPG). Minim Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 2004, 13(4), 222–227.
  5. Utzschneider S., Becker F., Grupp T.M., Sievers B., Paulus A., Gottschalk O., Jansson V.: Inflammatory response against different carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK wear particles compared with UHMWPE in vivo. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6(11), 4296– 4304. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.06.002. Epub 2010 Jun 8. Erratum in: Acta Biomater. 2012 Mar;8(3):1396–1398.
  6. Żywicka B., Mielicka E., Pinar A., Zaczyńska E., Czarny A., Walak A., Krucińska I., Ciechańska D., Walak P., UmińskaWasiluk B., Oleksiewicz I.: Evaluation of biocompatibility of newly developed surgical threads made W:EORS 2014 – 22nd Annual Meeting. Nantes, France, 2–4 July 2014. Online full abstract book; poz.P7.6 [Dostęp 02.09.2014]. Dostępny w: http:// mymarketingteam.conference-services.net/programme.asp?conferenceID= 3989&action=prog_list&session= 30824
  7. PN-EN ISO 10993-6- Biological evaluation of medical devices part 6-Local effect after implantation
  8. Leszczynski R., Gumula T., Stodolak-Zych E., Pawlicki K., Wieczorek J., Kajor M., Blazewicz S.: Histopathological Evaluation of a Hydrophobic Terpolymer (PTFE-PVD-PP) as an Implant Material for Nonpenetrating Very Deep Sclerectomy. Invest Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015, 56(9), 5203–5209. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-16027
  9. Paul P.G., Khurd A.S., Garg R., Radhika K.T.: Laparoscopic Tubal Reanastomosis using Barbed Sutures. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016, 5. pii: S1553-4650(16)30138-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.016.
  10. Kirschbaum A., Waubke K., Pehl A., Steinfeldt T., Bartsch D.K.: Suture or Stapling Are Superior in Comparison to Bipolar Sealing for Closing the Bronchi. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2016, 5. [Epub ahead of print]
  11. Scheuerlein H., El-Asfar T., Dittmar Y., Tannapfel A., Settmacher U., Rauchfuss F.: Assessment of bovine pericardium (tutomesh®) and coated polypropylene (proceed®) in the para-oesophageal position in a pig model. Zentralbl. Chir. 2015, 140(2), 163–169. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1383372. Epub 2015 Mar 4.
  12. Swaim SF.: Management of skin tension in dermal surgery. Compend. Contin. Educ. Pract. Vet. 1980, 11, 758–766.
  13. Kondo R., Itoda Y., Panthee N., Inui A., Ashiba H., Ando T., Kobayashi E., Sakuma I., Ono M.:A New Suturing Device for Small Arteries. Int. Heart J. 2016, 25, 57(3), 323–326. doi: 10.1536/ihj.15-412. Epub 2016 May 16.
  14. Zeplin P.H., Schmidt K., Laske M., Ziegler U.E.: Comparison of various methods and materials for treatment of skin laceration by 3-dimensional measuring technique in a pig experiment. Ann. Plastic Surg. 2007, 58, 566–572.
  15. Batra J., Bekal R.K., Byadgi S., Attresh G., Sambyal S., Vakade C.D.: Comparison of Skin Staples and Standard Sutures for Closing Incisions After Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized and Prospective Study. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2016, 15(2), 243–250. doi: 10.1007/s12663-015-0809-y. Epub 2015 Jun 4.
  16. Dominiak M., Żywicka B., Pielka S.: Rany w stomatologii: rodzaje, zasady gojenia i sposoby ich zaopatrywania. [W:] Podstawy chirurgii stomatologicznej. Red.: Dominiak M, Zapała J., Gedrange T. Elsevier Urban & Partner, Wrocław 2013, 181–206.
  17. Batra J., Bekal R.K., Byadgi S., Attresh G., Sambyal S., Vakade C.D.: Comparison of Skin Staples and Standard Sutures for Closing Incisions After Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized and Prospective Study. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2016, 15(2), 243–250. doi: 10.1007/s12663-015-0809-y. Epub 2015 Jun 4.
  18. Van Winkle W., Hastings C., Barker E., Hines D., Nichols W.: Effect of suture materials on healing skin wounds. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1975, 140, 7–12.
  19. Mirković S., Mirković T.D.: Influence of different types of surgical suture materials on mechanical damage of oral mucosa. Med. Pregl. 2011, 64(3–4), 157–160.
  20. Kolb C.M., Pierce L.M., Roofe S.B.: Biocompatibility comparison of novel soft tissue implants vs commonly used biomaterials in a pig model. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2012, 147(3), 456–461. doi: 10.1177/0194599812450855. Epub 2012 Jun 11
© Wroclaw Medical University