7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) and poly(trimethylene carbonate) membranes for urethral regeneration: an in vitro and in vivo study.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Urethral defects are normally reconstructed using patient's own genital tissue; however, in severe cases, additional grafts are needed. We studied the suitability of poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) (PLCL) and poly(trimethylene carbonate) (PTMC) membranes for urethral reconstruction in vivo. Further, the compatibility of the materials was evaluated in vitro with human urothelial cells (hUC). The attachment and viability of hUCs and the expression of different urothelial cell markers (Cytokeratin 7, 8, 19 and Uroplakin Ia, Ib and III) were studied after in vitro cell culture on PLCL and PTMC. For the in vivo study, 32 rabbits were divided into the PLCL (n=15), PTMC (n=15) and control or sham surgery (n=2) groups. An oval urethral defect 1×2 cm in size was surgically excised and replaced with a PLCL or a PTMC membrane or urethral mucosa in sham surgery group. The rabbits were followed for 2, 4 and 16 weeks. After the follow-up, urethrography was performed to check the patency of the urethra. The defect area was excised for histological examination, where the epithelial integrity and structure, inflammation and fibrosis were observed. There was no notable difference on hUCs attachment on PLCL and PTMC membranes after 1 d of cell seeding, further, the majority of hUCs were viable and maintained their urothelial phenotype on both biomaterials. Postoperatively, animals recovered well, and no severe strictures were discovered by urethrography. In histological examination, the urothelial integrity and structure developed towards a normal urothelium with only mild signs of fibrosis or inflammation. According to these results, PLCL and PTMC are both suitable for reconstructing urethral defects. There were no explicit differences between the PLCL and PTMC membranes. However, PTMC membranes were more flexible, easier to suture and shape and developed significant epithelial integrity.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Tissue Eng Part A
          Tissue engineering. Part A
          Mary Ann Liebert Inc
          1937-335X
          1937-3341
          May 02 2017
          Affiliations
          [1 ] BioMediTech, Tampere, Finland.
          [2 ] Tampereen yliopistollinen sairaala, 60670, Science Centre, Tampere, Finland ; reetta.sartoneva@fimnet.fi.
          [3 ] Tampereen yliopisto Biolaaketieteellisen teknologian yksikko, 176473, BioMediTech, Tampere, Finland.
          [4 ] Tampereen yliopistollinen sairaala, 60670, Science Centre, Tampere, Finland ; panu.nordback@uta.fi.
          [5 ] Helsingin Yliopisto Laaketieteellinen tiedekunta, 60655, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases, Helsinki, Finland ; suvi.haimi@sulawood.com.
          [6 ] University of Twente, Department of Biomaterials Science and Technology, Enschede, Netherlands ; d.w.grijpma@utwente.nl.
          [7 ] BioMediTech, Tampere, Finland ; kalle.lehto@tut.fi.
          [8 ] Proxy Biomedical Ltd., Galway, Ireland ; niall.rooney@proxybiomedical.com.
          [9 ] University of Helsinki FINLAND, Helsinki, Finland ; riitta.seppanen-kaijansinkko@helsinki.fi.
          [10 ] University of Tampere, Adult Stem Cell Research, Regea, Institute of Biomedical Technology, TAMPERE, Finland ; susanna.miettinen@uta.fi.
          [11 ] Tampereen yliopistollinen sairaala, 60670, Pediatric and Adolescent Surgery Unit, Tampere, Finland.
          [12 ] Tampereen yliopistollinen sairaala, 60670, Science Centre, Tampere, Finland ; tuija.lahdes-vasama@pshp.fi.
          Article
          10.1089/ten.TEA.2016.0245
          28463605
          a1dc6177-4d47-4e52-93c5-a772b11d119f
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article