CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85Polymer Surface Interaction StudiesTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Theoretical analysis of in vivo macrophage adhesion and foreign body gaint cell formation on polydimethylsiloxane, low density polyethylene, and polyetherurethanes

Kao, Weiyuan John, Zhao, Qing H., Hiltner, Anne, Anderson, James M.·1994·Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
DOI 10.1002/jbm.820280110
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Quantitative description of foreign body giant cell (FBGC) formation on implanted polymer surfaces as a function of time can conceivably correlate cell adhesion with polymer properties and possibly predict the behavior of the polymer in vivo. In the present study, the formation of FBGCs on various biomedical polymers was quantified by two parameters: the density of adherent macrophages present initially that participate in FBGC formation (d 0) and the rate constant for cell fusion (k); both kinetic parameters were used to calculate the time‐dependent FBGC density (d fc). The materials used were: three Pellethane poly(etherurethanes) (PEUs) varying in weight percent of hard segment, one poly(etherurethane urea) (PEUU), and NHLBI‐DTB primary reference materials: low density polyethylene (LDPE), silica‐free polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The results indicated that up to 5 weeks of implantation, FBGCs were formed from the fusion of one population of adherent macrophages present by 3 days post‐implantation. Furthermore, only a small fraction (<8%) of this initial adherent macrophage population participated in FBGC formation. Based on the results of previous studies and the current study, it was concluded that increase in PEU hard segment weight percent, surface hardness and hydrophobicity increased total protein adsorption and effectively increased d 0 and d fc. No further correlations between the material properties of all polymers and the cell kinetics can be made at this time. However, this study demonstrated that macrophage adhesion and FBGC formation can be quantified with the cell fusion model, and are modulated by various polymer properties. © 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jbm.820280110

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The soft segment of polyether polyurethanes is known to undergo degradation.

    “The soft segment of polyether polyurethanes is known to undergo degradation.[86–98]”

    From Foreign body reaction to biomaterials (2008) · cites this paper as [87]

  • There is an in vivo correlation between macrophage and foreign body giant cell adhesion and environmental stress cracking on the surface of the material.

    “In this study and others, we clearly identified the in vivo correlation between macrophage and FBGC adhesion and environmental stress cracking on the surface of the material.[86, 87]”

    From Foreign body reaction to biomaterials (2008) · cites this paper as [87]

  • As the foreign body response progresses, frustrated phagocytosis from activated macrophages leads to fusion into foreign body giant cells that attempt to further break down the implant.

    “As the FBR progresses, frustrated phagocytosis from activated macrophages will lead to the fusion of macrophages into foreign body giant cells (FBGCs) that attempt to further breakdown the implant.73,94,97–98”

    From Biocompatible Materials for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices (2013) · cites this paper as [98]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kao, W. J., Zhao, Q. H., Hiltner, A., & Anderson, J. M.
Affiliations
Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, James M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-01
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
73-79
ISSN
  • 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4636
DOI
10.1002/jbm.820280110
OpenAlex
W1976230888
Cited by
85
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 3908 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Materials Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2r01hl025239-19)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL25239, R01HL047300, HL47300, HL 33849)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Surfaces, Coatings and Films › Polymer Surface Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
macrophage adhesion, polydimethylsiloxane, low-density polyethylene, hard segment content, surface hardness, surface hydrophobicity, protein adsorption, biocompatibility
MeSH terms
Adsorption, Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Cell Adhesion, Cell Fusion, Dimethylpolysiloxanes, Female, Foreign-Body Reaction, Kinetics, Macrophages, Models, Biological, Polyethylenes, Polyurethanes, Proteins, Surface Properties, Giant Cells, Foreign-Body, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Prostheses and Implants, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review