Cited by 55Bone fractures and treatmentsOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastySurgical Sutures and Adhesives

Local foreign-body reaction to commercial biodegradable implants: an in vivo animal study

Open access
Xue, Amy S., Koshy, John C., Weathers, William M., Wolfswinkel, Erik M., Kaufman, Yoav, Sharabi, Safa E., Brown, Rodger H., Hicks, M.John +1 more·2014·Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

Abstract

Biodegradable plates have been used extensively in fracture fixation since the 1960s. They rarely cause stress-protection atrophy or problems requiring secondary plate removal, common complications seen with metallic plates. However, aseptic foreign-body reactions have been reported, sometimes years after the original implantation. Both inadequate polymer degradation and debris accumulation have been implicated as causes. The current generation of commercial biodegradable plates is formulated to minimize this complication by altering the ratio of polylactic and polyglycolic acids. This in vivo study compares the degree of local foreign-body reaction of two commercially available resorbable plates in rabbits. Two types of biodegradable plates were examined: poly(D/L)lactide acid (PDLLA) and polylactide-co-glycolide acid (PLGA). Each plate was placed into a periosteal pericalvarial pocket created beneath the anterior or posterior scalp of a rabbit. Humane killing occurred at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Foreign-body reaction was evaluated histologically. The PDLLA plates demonstrated marked local foreign-body reactions within the implant capsule as early as 3 months after implantation, with presence of inflammatory cells and granulomatous giant cells in close association with the implant material. All local foreign-body reactions were subclinical with no corresponding tissue swelling requiring drainage. PLGA plates did not demonstrate any signs of inflammatory reactions. In addition, the PLGA plates did not appear to resorb or integrate at 12 months. Neither PDLLA nor PLGA plates demonstrated inflammation of the soft tissue or adjacent bone outside the implant capsule. In our study, the PDLLA plates demonstrated histological evidence of foreign-body reaction that is confined within the implant capsule, which was not seen with the PLGA plates. This finding may be attributable to the lack of significant resorption seen in the PLGA plates. Both PDLLA and PLGA plates were biocompatible with the rabbit tissue environment and should be considered for continued use in craniofacial, maxillofacial, and orthopedic reconstruction.

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 · 10.1055/s-0033-1364199

Cites

13 of 13 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?

  • Some studies still reported moderate degrees of FBR at implantation sites of biodegradable bioelectronics.

    “However, some studies still reported moderate degrees of FBR at the implantation sites of biodegradable bioelectronics (Xue et al., 2014).”

    From Foreign Body Reaction to Implanted Biomaterials and Its Impact in Nerve Neuroprosthetics (2021) · cites this paper as Xue et al., 2014

    The paper reports local foreign-body reactions to biodegradable PDLLA fixation plates implanted in rabbits, with reactions confined to the implant capsule (Keywords; Discussion). It does not study biodegradable bioelectronics, and it describes the PDLLA reactions as marked rather than moderate; the PLGA plates showed no inflammatory reaction. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10 Eppley BL, Platis JM, Sadove AM. Experimental effects of bone plating in infancy on craniomaxillofacial skeletal growth. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1993;30(2):164 -169

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xue, A. S., Koshy, J. C., Weathers, W. M., Wolfswinkel, E. M., Kaufman, Y., Sharabi, S. E., Brown, R. H., Hicks, M. J., & Hollier, L. H.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine
Corresponding author
Hollier, Larry H.
Venue
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2014-03
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
27-33
ISSN
  • 1943-3875 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3883
OpenAlex
W2071084445
Cited by
55
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Sutures and Adhesives
Keywords
foreign body reaction, biodegradable implants, resorbable plates, poly(D,L-lactide), polylactide-co-glycolide, fracture fixation, biocompatibility, implant resorption, granulomatous inflammation, rabbit model

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