Characterization of the Foreign Body Response to Common Surgical Biomaterials in a Murine Model.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Implanted biomaterials are subject to a significant reaction from the host,
known as the foreign body response (FBR). We quantified the FBR to five materials
following subcutaneous implantation in mice. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA) and silicone sheets are considered highly biocompatible biomaterials and were
cut into 8mm-diameter disks. Expanded PTFE (ePTFE)and polypropylene are also widely
used biocompatible biomaterials and were cut into 2cm-long cylinders. Cotton was selected
as a negative control material that would invoke an intense FBR, was cut into disks
and implanted. The implants were inserted subcutaneously into female C57BL/6 mice.
On post-implantation days 14, 30, 60, 90 and 180, implants were retrieved. Cellularity
was assessed with DAPI stain, collagen with Masson's trichrome stain. mast cells with
toluidine-blue, macrophages with F4/80 immunohistochemical-stain, and capsular thickness
and foreign body giant cells with hematoxylin & eosin. RESULTS:DAPI revealed a significantly
increased cellularity in both PVA andsilicone, and ePTFE had the lowest cell density.
Silicone showed the lowest cellularity at d14 and d90 whereas ePTFE showed the lowest
cellularity at days 30, 60, and 180. Masson's trichrome staining demonstrated no apparent
difference in collagen. Toluidine blue showed no differences in mast cells. There
were, however, fewer macrophages associated with ePTFE. On d14, PVA had highest number
of macrophages, whereas polypropylene had the highest number at all time points after
d14. Giant cells increased earlier and gradually decreased later. On d90, PVA exhibited
a significantly increased number of giant cells compared to polypropylene and silicone.
Silicone consistently formed the thinnest capsule throughout all time points. On d14,
cotton had formed the thickest capsule. On d30 polypropylenehas formed thickest capsule
and on days 60, 90 and 180, PVA had formed thickest capsule. CONCLUSION:These data
reveal differences in capsule thickness and cellular response in an implant-related
manor, indicating that fibrotic reactions to biomaterials are implant specific and
should be carefully considered when performing studies on fibrosis when biomaterials
are being used.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/18478Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1007/s00238-017-1308-9Publication Info
Ibrahim, Mohamed; Bond, Jennifer; Medina, Manuel A; Chen, Lei; Quiles, Carlos; Kokosis,
George; ... Levinson, Howard (2017). Characterization of the Foreign Body Response to Common Surgical Biomaterials in a
Murine Model. European journal of plastic surgery, 40(5). pp. 383-392. 10.1007/s00238-017-1308-9. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/18478.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Bruce Klitzman
Associate Professor Emeritus in Surgery
Our overriding interests are in the fields of tissue engineering, wound healing, biosensors,
and long term improvement of medical device implantation. My basic research interests
are in the area of physiological mechanisms of optimizing substrate transport to tissue.
This broad topic covers studies on a whole animal, whole organ, hemorheological, microvascular,
cellular, ultrastructural, and molecular level. The current projects include:
1) control of blood flow and flow distribu
Howard Levinson
Associate Professor of Surgery
Fibrosis Wound Healing Cell Contractility Tissue RemodelingMedical device development
including hernia mesh, tissue engineered skin and wound care technologies
Alphabetical list of authors with Scholars@Duke profiles.

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info