Cited by 67Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicinePolymer Surface Interaction StudiesNitric Oxide and Endothelin Effects

The effect of nitric oxide surface flux on the foreign body response to subcutaneous implants

Open access
Nichols, Scott P., Koh, Ahyeon, Brown, Nga L., Rose, Michael B., Sun, Bin, Slomberg, Danielle L., Riccio, Daniel A., Klitzman, Bruce +1 more·2012·Biomaterials

Abstract

Although the release of nitric oxide (NO) from biomaterials has been shown to reduce the foreign body response (FBR), the optimal NO release kinetics and doses remain unknown. Herein, polyurethane-coated wire substrates with varying NO release properties were implanted into porcine subcutaneous tissue for 3, 7, 21 and 42 d. Histological analysis revealed that materials with short NO release durations (i.e., 24 h) were insufficient to reduce the collagen capsule thickness at 3 and 6 weeks, whereas implants with longer release durations (i.e., 3 and 14 d) and greater NO payloads significantly reduced the collagen encapsulation at both 3 and 6 weeks. The acute inflammatory response was mitigated most notably by systems with the longest duration and greatest dose of NO release, supporting the notion that these properties are most critical in circumventing the FBR for subcutaneous biomedical applications (e.g., glucose sensors).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.053

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In Nichols et al.'s study, inflammation was only influenced by substrates that were still actively releasing nitric oxide at the time of explantation, unlike capsule thickness.

    “In contrast to the capsule thickness, inflammation was only affected by substrates still actively releasing NO at time of explants.”
  • Nichols et al. studied how nitric oxide release duration (6 hours to 14 days) and payload (2.7 to 9.3 Vmol cm−2) affect the foreign body response, using 316L stainless steel wires as size-matched model sensors coated with various nitric oxide release formulations.

    “Work by Nichols et al. examined the influence of NO-release duration and payload ranging from 6 h to 14 d and 2.7 to 9.3 Vmol cm−2, respectively, on the FBR using 316L stainless steel wires as model sensors (with respect to size) coated with different NO release formulations.”
  • In Nichols et al.'s study, collagen encapsulation decreased at 3 and 6 weeks, with the largest effect seen for the highest payloads and longest release.

    “Collagen encapsulation was reduced at 3 and 6 weeks, and the greatest effect was observed for the largest payloads and longest release.”
  • The short-term benefits reported by Gifford et al. might be further improved by a larger and more sustained nitric oxide release profile.

    “These results indicate that the short-term benefits reported by Gifford et al. may be further enhanced with a greater and more sustained NO release profile.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nichols, S. P., Koh, A., Brown, N. L., Rose, M. B., Sun, B., Slomberg, D. L., Riccio, D. A., Klitzman, B., & Schoenfisch, M. H.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Schoenfisch, Mark H.
Venue
Biomaterials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
33
Issue
27
Pages
6305-6312
ISSN
0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053700169
Cited by
67
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7
FWCI
5.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomaterials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (EB 000708, R01EB000708)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Surfaces, Coatings and Films › Polymer Surface Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nitric Oxide and Endothelin Effects
Keywords
nitric oxide release, foreign body reaction, subcutaneous implants, collagen capsule, acute inflammation, NO release kinetics, glucose sensor
MeSH terms
Animals, Collagen, Foreign-Body Reaction, Inflammation, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Nitric Oxide, Polyurethanes, Surface Properties, Water, Implants, Experimental, Coated Materials, Biocompatible, Sus scrofa, Subcutaneous Tissue, Nanoparticles

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