The use of biologic scaffold materials adjacent to synthetic meshes is commonplace. A prevalent clinical example is two-staged breast reconstruction, where biologic scaffolds are used to provide support and coverage for the inferior aspect of the synthetic expander. However, limited data exist regarding either the kinetics of biologic scaffold integration or the host tissue response to the biologic scaffold materials used for this application or other applications in which such scaffold materials are used. The present study evaluated the temporal host response to a biological scaffold when placed adjacent to a synthetic material. Evaluation criteria included quantification of material contracture and characterization of the host cell response and tissue remodeling events. Results show a decreased thickness of the collagenous tissue layer at biologic scaffold/silicone interface compared to the abdominal wall/silicone interface during the 12-week experimental time course. All test materials were readily incorporated into surrounding host tissue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JemalA., BrayF., CenterM.M., FerlayJ., WardE., and FormanD.Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 61, 69, 2011.
2.
Surgeons ASoP. Plastic surgery statistics report. ASPS National clearinghouse of plastic surgery procedural statistics. http://www.plasticsurgery. American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2012, p23.
3.
ButlerC.E., and PrietoV.G.Reduction of adhesions with composite alloderm/polypropylene mesh implants for abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg, 114, 464, 2004.
4.
RudnickiM., LaurikainenE., PogoseanR., KinneI., JakobssonU., and TelemanP.Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Obstet Gynaecol, 121, 102, 2014.
5.
BadylakS.F., FreytesD.O., and GilbertT.W.Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function. Acta Biomater, 5, 1, 2009.
6.
HoddeJ.P., BadylakS.F., BrightmanA.O., and Voytik-HarbinS.L.Glycosaminoglycan content of small intestinal submucosa: a bioscaffold for tissue replacement. Tissue Eng, 2, 209, 1996.
7.
HoddeJ.P., RecordR.D., LiangH.A., and BadylakS.F.Vascular endothelial growth factor in porcine-derived extracellular matrix. Endothelium, 8, 11, 2001.
8.
Voytik-HarbinS.L., BrightmanA.O., KraineM.R., WaisnerB., and BadylakS.F.Identification of extractable growth factors from small intestinal submucosa. J Cell Biochem, 67, 478, 1997.
9.
de Castro BrásL.E., ShureyS., and SibbonsP.D.Evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic prostheses for abdominal hernia repair. Hernia, 16, 77, 2011.
10.
DeekenC.R., MelmanL., JenkinsE.D., GrecoS.C., FrisellaM.M., and MatthewsB.D.Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg, 212, 880, 2011.
11.
RecordR.D., HillegondsD., SimmonsC., TulliusR., RickeyF.A., ElmoreD., et al.In vivo degradation of 14C-labeled small intestinal submucosa (SIS) when used for urinary bladder repair. Biomaterials, 22, 2653, 2001.
12.
ValentinJ.E., Stewart-AkersA.M., GilbertT.W., and BadylakS.F.Macrophage participation in the degradation and remodeling of extracellular matrix scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 1687, 2009.
13.
LiF., LiW., JohnsonS., IngramD., YoderM., and BadylakS.Low-molecular-weight peptides derived extracellular matrix as chemoattractants for primary endothelial cells. Endothelium, 11, 199, 2004.
14.
BadylakS., MeurlingS., ChenM., SpievackA., and Simmons-ByrdA.Resorbable bioscaffold for esophageal repair in a dog model. J Pediatr Surg, 35, 1097, 2000.
15.
VorotnikovaE., McIntoshD., DewildeA., ZhangJ., ReingJ.E., ZhangL., et al.Extracellular matrix-derived products modulate endothelial and progenitor cell migration and proliferation in vitro and stimulate regenerative healing in vivo. Matrix Biol, 29, 690, 2010.
16.
BeattieA.J., GilbertT.W., GuyotJ.P., YatesA.J., and BadylakS.F.Chemoattraction of progenitor cells by remodeling extracellular matrix scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 1119, 2009.
17.
AllmanA.J., McPhersonT.B., BadylakS.F., MerrillL.C., KallakuryB., SheehanC., et al.Xenogeneic extracellular matrix grafts elicit a TH2-restricted immune response. Transplantation, 71, 1631, 2001.
18.
BadylakS.F., and GilbertT.W.Immune response to biologic scaffold materials. Semin Immunol, 20, 109, 2008.
19.
ReingJ.E., BrownB.N., DalyK.A., FreundJ.M., GilbertT.W., HsiongS.X., et al.The effects of processing methods upon mechanical and biologic properties of porcine dermal extracellular matrix scaffolds. Biomaterials, 31, 8626, 2010.
20.
KeaneT.J., LondonoR., CareyR.M., CarruthersC.A., ReingJ.E., DearthC.L., et al.Preparation and characterization of a biologic scaffold from esophageal mucosa. Biomaterials, 34, 6729, 2013.
21.
BrownB.N., LondonoR., TotteyS., ZhangL., KuklaK.A., WolfM.T., et al.Macrophage phenotype as a predictor of constructive remodeling following the implantation of biologically derived surgical mesh materials. Acta Biomater, 8, 978, 2012.
22.
ValentinJ.E., TurnerN.J., GilbertT.W., and BadylakS.F.Functional skeletal muscle formation with a biologic scaffold. Biomaterials, 31, 7475, 2010.
23.
Seif-NaraghiS.B., SingelynJ.M., SalvatoreM.A., OsbornK.G., WangJ.J., SampatU., et al.Safety and efficacy of an injectable extracellular matrix hydrogel for treating myocardial infarction. Sci Transl Med, 5, 173ra25, 2013.
24.
BadylakS.F., HoppoT., NieponiceA., GilbertT.W., DavisonJ.M., and JobeB.A.Esophageal preservation in five male patients after endoscopic inner-layer circumferential resection in the setting of superficial cancer: a regenerative medicine approach with a biologic scaffold. Tissue Eng, 17, 1643, 2011.
25.
LiuA.S., KaoH.K., ReishR.G., HergrueterC.A., MayJ.W.Jr., and GuoL.Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg, 127, 1755, 2011.
26.
ChunY.S., VermaK., RosenH., LipsitzS., MorrisD., KenneyP., et al.Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg, 125, 429, 2010.
27.
HenriksenT.F., FryzekJ.P., HolmichL.R., McLaughlinJ.K., KjollerK., HoyerA.P., et al.Surgical intervention and capsular contracture after breast augmentation: a prospective study of risk factors. Ann Plast Surg, 54, 343, 2005.
28.
SevinA., SevinK., SenenD., DerenO., AdanaliG., and ErdoganB.Augmentation mammaplasty: retrospective analysis of 210 cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 30, 651, 2006.
29.
HandelN., CordrayT., GutierrezJ., and JensenJ.A.A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg, 117, 757, discussion 68, 2006.
30.
RosatoR.M., and DowdenR.V.Radiation therapy as a cause of capsular contracture. Ann Plast Surg, 32, 342, 1994.
31.
OlbrichK.C., MeadeR., BrunoW., HellerL., KlitzmanB., and LevinL.S.Halofuginone inhibits collagen deposition in fibrous capsules around implants. Ann Plast Surg, 54, 293, discussion 6, 2005.
32.
AdamsW.P.Jr., HaydonM.S., RaniereJ.Jr., TrottS., MarquesM., FelicianoM., et al.A rabbit model for capsular contracture: development and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg, 117, 1214, discussion 20, 2006.
33.
CollisN., ColemanD., FooI.T., and SharpeD.T.Ten-year review of a prospective randomized controlled trial of textured versus smooth subglandular silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg, 106, 786, 2000.
34.
WongC.H., SamuelM., TanB.K., and SongC.Capsular contracture in subglandular breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg, 118, 1224, 2006.
35.
SchremlS., HeineN., Eisenmann-KleinM., and PrantlL.Bacterial colonization is of major relevance for high-grade capsular contracture after augmentation mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg, 59, 126, 2007.
36.
PittetB., MontandonD., and PittetD.Infection in breast implants. Lancet Infect Dis, 5, 94, 2005.
37.
WolframD., RainerC., NiedereggerH., PizaH., and WickG.Cellular and molecular composition of fibrous capsules formed around silicone breast implants with special focus on local immune reactions. J Autoimmun, 23, 81, 2004.
38.
MomohA.O., and ChungK.C.Discussion. T regulatory cells and TH17 cells in peri-silicone implant capsular fibrosis. Plast Reconstr Surg, 129, 338e, 2012.
39.
WolframD., RabensteinerE., GrundtmanC., BockG., MayerlC., ParsonW., et al.T regulatory cells and TH17 cells in peri-silicone implant capsular fibrosis. Plast Reconstr Surg, 129, 327e, 2012.
40.
AllmanA.J., McPhersonT.B., MerrillL.C., BadylakS.F., and MetzgerD.W.The Th2-restricted immune response to xenogeneic small intestinal submucosa does not influence systemic protective immunity to viral and bacterial pathogens. Tissue Eng, 8, 53, 2002.
41.
CareyL.E., DearthC.L., JohnsonS.A., LondonoR., MedberryC.J., DalyK.A., et al.In vivo degradation of 14C-labeled porcine dermis biologic scaffold. Biomaterials, 35, 8297, 2014.
42.
GilbertT.W., Stewart-AkersA.M., Simmons-ByrdA., and BadylakS.F.Degradation and remodeling of small intestinal submucosa in canine Achilles tendon repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 89, 621, 2007.
43.
SicariB.M., RubinJ.P., DearthC.L., WolfM.T., AmbrosioF., BoningerM., et al.An acellular biologic scaffold promotes skeletal muscle formation in mice and humans with volumetric muscle loss. Sci Transl Med, 6, 234ra58, 2014.
44.
ValentinJ.E., TurnerN.J., GilbertT.W., and BadylakS.F.Functional skeletal muscle formation with a biologic scaffold. Biomaterials, 31, 7475, 2010.
45.
BadylakS.F., VorpD.A., SpievackA.R., Simmons-ByrdA., HankeJ., FreytesD.O., et al.Esophageal reconstruction with ECM and muscle tissue in a dog model. J Surg Res, 128, 87, 2005.
46.
TidballJ.G., and VillaltaS.A.Regulatory interactions between muscle and the immune system during muscle regeneration. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol, 298, R1173, 2010.
47.
VillaltaS.A., NguyenH.X., DengB., GotohT., and TidballJ.G.Shifts in macrophage phenotypes and macrophage competition for arginine metabolism affect the severity of muscle pathology in muscular dystrophy. Hum Mol Genet, 18, 482, 2009.
48.
BotaP.C., CollieA.M., PuolakkainenP., VernonR.B., SageE.H., RatnerB.D., et al.Biomaterial topography alters healing in vivo and monocyte/macrophage activation in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A, 95, 649, 2010.
49.
SussmanE.M., HalpinM.C., MusterJ., MoonR.T., and RatnerB.D.Porous implants modulate healing and induce shifts in local macrophage polarization in the foreign body reaction. Ann Biomed Eng, 42, 1508, 2014.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
