Effect of varying the crosslinking degree of a pericardial implant with oligourethane on the repair of a rat full-thickness abdominal wall defect

Abstract

The stability and bioactivity of biologic implants rely mainly on the control of the crosslinking process of collagen. However, the most common methods have no control on the crosslinking degree producing it excessively. This study outlines the role of crosslinking of collagen-based implants with oligourethane on the host response following reconstruction of a rat full-thickness abdominal wall defect. We decellularized and crosslinked bovine pericardial tissue to achieve two crosslinking degrees. For the decellularized implants, named as non-crosslinked (N-CL), the collagen-amines were 0.42 ± 0.02 mmol/mg. Crosslinking by the oligourethane reduced the primary amine concentration to 0.28 ± 0.01 and 0.19 ± 0.01 mmol/mg; these values were classified as low (∼30%, L-CL) and medium crosslinking (∼50%, M-CL), respectively. By imaging the implants using second harmonic generation microscopy, we observed undulated bundles of collagen fibers organized in multi-directed layers localized in N-CL and L-CL samples. Post-implantation, a negligible change in the organization of collagen fibers in the crosslinked implants was observed, suggesting that the in vivo biodegradation was delayed. An enlargement of the implant area was also observed, without rupture, in all three (N-CL, L-CL, M-CL) materials, whereas adhesion to the omentum, but not to the bowel, was observed. The number of blood vessels after 90-day implantation in N-CL and L-CL was 13 ± 1 and 12 ± 1 per field, respectively, while the number significantly decreased to 2 ± 1 in M-CL. The results suggest that the controlled degree of crosslinking in oligourethane-modified biologic implants can be used as a strategy to balance biodegradation and remodeling in surgical repair of soft tissues.

Keywords

Extracellular matrix scaffolds crosslinked surgical biomesh pericardial tissue host response abdominal wall repair

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wolf

Dearth

Sonnenberg

et al . Naturally derived and synthetic scaffolds for skeletal muscle reconstruction. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2015; 84: 208–221.

Londono

Badylak

SF.

Biologic scaffolds for regenerative medicine: mechanisms of in vivo remodeling. Ann Biomed Eng 2015; 43: 577–592.

Parmaksiz

Dogan

Odabas

et al . Clinical applications of decellularized extracellular matrices for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biomed Mater 2016; 11: 022003.

Aamodt

Grainger

DW.

Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response. Biomaterials 2016; 86: 68–82.

Zilla

Brink

Human

et al . Prosthetic heart valves: catering for the few. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 385–406.

Delgado

Bayon

Pandit

et al . To cross-link or not to cross-link? Cross-linking associated foreign body response of collagen-based devices. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2015; 21: 298–313.

Wong

Griffiths

LG.

Immunogenicity in xenogeneic scaffold generation: antigen removal vs. decellularization. Acta Biomater 2014; 10: 1806–1816.

Witherel

Graney

Freytes

et al . Response of human macrophages to wound matrices in vitro. Wound Repair Regen 2016; 24: 514–524.

Kalaba

Gerhard

Winder

et al . Design strategies and applications of biomaterials and devices for Hernia repair. Bioact Mater 2016; 1: 2–17.

10.

Burugapalli

Pandit

Characterization of tissue response and in vivo degradation of cholecyst-derived extracellular matrix. Biomacromolecules 2007; 8: 3439–3451.

11.

Konstantinovic

Lagae

Zheng

et al . Comparison of host response to polypropylene and non-cross-linked porcine small intestine serosal-derived collagen implants in a rat model. BJOG 2005; 112: 1554–1560.

12.

Cavallo

Greco

Liu

et al . Remodeling characteristics and biomechanical properties of a crosslinked versus a non-crosslinked porcine dermis scaffolds in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia 2015; 19: 207–218.

13.

Costa

Naranjo

Turner

et al . Mechanical strength vs. degradation of a biologically-derived surgical mesh over time in a rodent full thickness abdominal wall defect. Biomaterials 2016; 108: 81–90.

14.

Morris

Stamer

Kyriakides

TR.

The host response to naturally-derived extracellular matrix biomaterials. Semin Immunol 2017; 29: 72–91.

15.

Liang

Chang

Hsu

et al . Effects of crosslinking degree of an acellular biological tissue on its tissue regeneration pattern. Biomaterials 2004; 25: 3541–3552.

16.

Gooch

Smart

Daniels

Xenograft biologic mesh implantation in abdominal wall reconstruction and the FDA Maude database. Surg Innov 2010; 17: 170.

17.

Pullan

Defriend

Biological mesh in complex abdominal wall repair. Long term results of use of ‘Permacol’ (porcine dermal collagen) in a single institution. Color Dis 2009; 11: 37.

18.

Mendoza-Novelo

Alvarado-Castro

Mata-Mata

et al . Stability and mechanical evaluation of bovine pericardium cross-linked with polyurethane prepolymer in aqueous medium. Mater Sci Eng C 2013; 33: 2392–2398.

19.

Mendoza-Novelo

Mata-Mata

Vega-González

et al . Synthesis and characterization of protected oligourethanes as crosslinkers of collagen-based scaffolds. J Mater Chem B 2014; 2: 2874–2882.

20.

Zhang

Wang

Xiao

et al . The biomechanical behavior and host response to porcine-derived small intestine submucosa, pericardium and dermal matrix acellular grafts in a rat abdominal defect model. Biomaterials 2011; 32: 7086–7095.

21.

Brown

Finch

JG.

Which mesh for hernia repair?

Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010; 92: 272–278.

22.

Suckow

Wolter

Fecteau

et al . Bupivacaine-enhanced small intestinal submucosa biomaterial as a hernia repair device. J Biomater Appl 2012; 27: 231–237.

23.

Janis

Johnson

Ernst

et al . Structural characteristics of small intestinal submucosa constructs dictate in vivo incorporation and angiogenic response. J Biomater Appl 2012; 26: 1013–1033.

24.

Mendoza-Novelo

Avila

Cauich-Rodríguez

et al . Decellularization of pericardial tissue and its impact on tensile viscoelasticity and glycosaminoglycan content. Acta Biomater 2011; 7: 1241–1248.

25.

Roth

Freund

Second harmonic generation in collagen. J Chem Phys 1979; 70: 1637–1643.

26.

Freund

Deutsch

Sprecher

Connective tissue polarity. Optical second-harmonic microscopy, crossed-beam summation, and small-angle scattering in rat-tail tendon. Biophys J 1986; 50: 693–712.

27.

Burugapalli

Chan

JCY

Kelly

et al . Efficacy of crosslinking on tailoring in vivo biodegradability of fibro-porous decellularized extracellular matrix and restoration of native tissue structure: a quantitative study using stereology methods. Macromol Biosci 2014; 14: 244–256.

28.

Boekema Bkhl Vlig

Olde Damink

et al . Effect of pore size and cross-linking of a novel collagen-elastin dermal substitute on wound healing. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 2014; 25: 423–433.

29.

Liu

Tang

Zhou

et al . Comparison of two porcine-derived materials for repairing abdominal wall defects in rats. PLoS One 2011; 6: e20520.

30.

Melman

Jenkins

Hamilton

et al . Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia 2011; 15: 157–164.

31.

Smart

Bryan

Hunt

et al . Porcine dermis implants in soft-tissue reconstruction: current status. Biol: Targets Ther 2014; 8: 83–90.

32.

Deeken

Melman

Jenkins

et al . Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 212: 880–888.

33.

Mendoza-Novelo

Castellano

Padilla-Miranda

et al . The component leaching from decellularized pericardial bioscaffolds and its implication in the macrophage response. J Biomed Mater Res ARes 2016; 104: 2810–2822.

34.

Dziki

Wang

Pineda

et al . Solubilized extracellular matrix bioscaffolds derived from diverse source tissues differentially influence macrophage phenotype. J Biomed Mater Res A 2017; 105: 138–147.

35.

Sahoo

Baker

et al . Investigating muscle regeneration with a dermis/small intestinal submucosa scaffold in a rat full-thickness abdominal wall defect model. J Biomed Mater Res A 2015; 103: 355–364.

36.

Pascual

Sotomayor

Rodríguez

et al . Extraperitoneal and intraperitoneal behavior of several biological meshes currently used to repair abdominal wall defects. J Biomed Mater Res B 2015; 103: 365–372.

37.

Aguiari

Iop

Favaretto

et al . In vitro comparative assessment of decellularized bovine pericardial patches and commercial bioprosthetic heart valves. Biomed Mater 2017; 12: 015021.