CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Melt electrowriting-printed peritoneal scaffold prevents peritoneal adhesion and facilitates peritoneal repair

Open access
Li, Sicheng, Huang, Jinjian, Xu, Ziyan, Liu, Ye, Ren, Huajian, Li, Ze, Chen, Canwen, Chen, Kang +2 more·2023·International Journal of Bioprinting
DOI 10.18063/ijb.682PMC PMC10236344
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Peritoneal adhesion is a critical issue after abdominal surgery. Cell-based methods for preventing peritoneal adhesion have not yet been fully investigated. Here, we constructed a highly biomimetic peritoneal scaffold by seeding mesothelial cells, the natural physiological barrier of the peritoneum, onto a melt electrowriting-printed scaffold. The scaffolds with the microfibers crossed at different angles (30°, 60°, and 90°) were screened based on mesothelial cell proliferation and orientation. Thirty degrees were more suitable for improving proliferation of mesothelial cells and cell growth in a single direction; therefore, the 30° peritoneal scaffold could better mimic the physiological structure of native peritoneum. Mechanistically, such a peritoneal scaffold was able to act as a barrier to prevent peritoneal resident macrophages from migrating to the site of the peritoneal lesion. In vivo mesothelial cell tracking using lentivirus technology confirmed that the peritoneal scaffold, compared to the scaffold without mesothelial cells, could prevent peritoneal adhesion and was directly involved in the repair of injured peritoneum. This study suggests that the peritoneal scaffolds can potentially prevent peritoneal adhesion, offering a new approach for clinical treatment.

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 · 10.18063/ijb.682

Cites

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?

  • A MEW peritoneal scaffold with 30° fiber alignment best supported a confluent layer of mesothelial cells, creating a biomimetic barrier.

    “The MEW scaffold with 30° fiber alignment best supported a confluent layer of mesothelial cells—the cells that naturally line the peritoneum—creating a biomimetic barrier.”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [274]

    Section 3.2 reports that the 30° scaffold supported more mesothelial-cell attachment and proliferation than the 60° and 90° scaffolds, with growth oriented to mimic the native peritoneum. The Introduction describes the cell-seeded scaffold as a physical and biological barrier. Our copy does not establish that the cells formed a confluent layer. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • When implanted in a rat abdominal injury model, a mesothelial-cell-seeded MEW mesh acted as a functional anti-adhesion barrier by physically blocking pro-adhesive cells like macrophages from infiltrating the injured site and actively participating in regenerating the damaged peritoneum.

    “When implanted in a rat abdominal injury model, a mesothelial-cell-seeded MEW mesh acted as a functional anti-adhesion barrier: it physically blocked pro-adhesive cells (like macrophages) from infiltrating the injured site and actively participated in regenerating the damaged peritoneum [274].”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [274]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The cell-coated MEW film markedly prevented postoperative peritoneal adhesions compared to acellular scaffolds.

    “The cell-coated MEW film markedly prevented postoperative peritoneal adhesions compared to acellular scaffolds.”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [274]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. [1]Molegraaf MJ Torensma B Lange CP et al. 2017 Twelve- year outcomes of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: A randomized clinical trial. Surgery 161 2 415 421 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.014 27866713 · DOI
  2. [2]Herrick SE Allen JE 2021 Surgical adhesions: A sticky macrophage problem. Science 371 6533 993 994 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg 5416 33674481 · DOI
  3. [3]Ten BR Issa Y van Santbrink EJ et al. 2013 Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: Systematic review and met-analysis. BMJ 347 oct03 1 f5588 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5588 24092941 PMC3789584 · DOI
  4. [4]Krielen P Stommel MWJ Pargmae P et al. 2020 Adhesion- related readmissions after open and laparoscopic surgery: A retrospective cohort study (SCAR update). Lancet (British edition) 395 10217 33 41 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32636-4 31908284 · DOI
  5. [5]Wiseman DM 2008 Disorders of adhesions or adhesion- related disorder: Monolithic entities or part of something bigger--CAPPS? Semin Reprod Med 26 4 356 368 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1082394 18756413 · DOI
  6. [6]Tang J Xiang Z Bernards MT et al. 2020 Peritoneal adhesions: Occurrence, prevention and experimental models. Acta Biomater 116 84 104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.08.036 32871282 · DOI
  7. [7]Trochsler M Maddern GJ 2014 Adhesion barriers for abdominal surgery: A sticky problem. Lancet 383 9911 8 10 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62002-4 24075278 · DOI
  8. [8]Ten BR Stommel M Strik C et al. 2014 Benefits and harms of adhesion barriers for abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 383 9911 48 59 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61687-6 24075279 · DOI
  9. [9]Carmichael SP Shin J Vaughan JW et al. 2022 Regenerative medicine therapies for prevention of abdominal adhesions: A scoping review. J Surg Res 275 252 264 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.02.005 35306261 PMC9038705 · DOI
  10. [10]Ito T Shintani Y Fields L et al. 2021 Cell barrier function of resident peritoneal macrophages in post-operative adhesions. Nat Commun 12 1 2232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22536-y 33854051 PMC8046819 · DOI
  11. [11]Inagaki NF Inagaki FF Kokudo N et al. 2015 Use of mouse liver mesothelial cells to prevent postoperative adhesion and promote liver regeneration after hepatectomy. J Hepatol 62 5 1141 1147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2014.12.010 25514558 · DOI
  12. [12]van Baal JO Van de Vijver KK Nieuwland R et al. 2017 The histophysiology and pathophysiology of the peritoneum. Tissue Cell 49 1 95 105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tice.2016.11.004 27890350 · DOI
  13. [13]Mutsaers SE Prele CM Pengelly S et al. 2016 Mesothelial cells and peritoneal homeostasis. Fertil Steril 106 5 1018 1024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.005 27692285 · DOI
  14. [14]Capobianco A Cottone L Monno A et al. 2017 The peritoneum: Healing, immunity, and diseases. J Pathol 243 2 137 147 https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4942 28722107 · DOI
  15. [15]63 Mutsaers SE Prêle CM Pengelly S et al. 2016 Mesothelial cells and peritoneal homeostasis Fertil Steril 106 5 1018 1024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.005 27692285 · DOI
  16. [16]Koffler J Zhu W Qu X et al. 2019 Biomimetic 3D-printed scaffolds for spinal cord injury repair. Nat Med 25 2 263 269 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0296-z 30643285 PMC6559945 · DOI
  17. [17]Kim BS Kwon YW Kong JS et al. 2018 3D cell printing of in vitro stabilized skin model and in vivo pre-vascularized skin patch using tissue-specific extracellular matrix bioink: A step towards advanced skin tissue engineering. Biomaterials 168 38 53 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.03.040 29614431 · DOI
  18. [18]Murphy SV De Coppi P Atala A 2020 Opportunities and challenges of translational 3D bioprinting. Nat Biomed Eng 4 4 370 380 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-019-0471-7 31695178 · DOI
  19. [19]Mandrycky C Wang Z Kim K et al. 2016 3D bioprinting for engineering complex tissues. Biotechnol Adv 34 4 422 434 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.12.011 26724184 PMC4879088 · DOI
  20. [20]Ye W Xie C Liu Y et al. 2021 3D printed high-resolution scaffold with hydrogel microfibers for providing excellent biocompatibility. J Biomater Appl 35 6 633 642 https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328220962606 32996360 · DOI
  21. [21]Tylek T Blum C Hrynevich A et al. 2020 Precisely defined fiber scaffolds with 40 μm porosity induce elongation driven M2-like polarization of human macrophages. Biofabrication 12 2 25007 https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab5f4e 31805543 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [22]Huang J Liu Y Chi X et al. 2021 Programming electronic skin with diverse skin-like properties. J Mater Chem A 9 2 963 973 https://doi.org/10.1039/D0TA09101D · DOI
  23. [23]Huang J Jiang Y Liu Y et al. 2021 Marine-inspired molecular mimicry generates a drug-free, but immunogenic hydrogel adhesive protecting surgical anastomosis. Bioact Mater 6 3 770 782 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.09.010 33024898 PMC7527377 · DOI
  24. [24]Ito T Shintani Y Fields L et al. 2021 Cell barrier function of resident peritoneal macrophages in post-operative adhesions. Nat Commun 12 1 2232 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22536-y 33854051 PMC8046819 · DOI
  25. [25]Tsai JM Sinha R Seita J et al. 2018 Surgical adhesions in mice are derived from mesothelial cells and can be targeted by antibodies against mesothelial markers. Sci Transl Med 10 469 n6735 https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aan6735 30487249 · DOI
  26. [26]Zindel J Peiseler M Hossain M et al. 2021 Primordial GATA6 macrophages function as extravascular platelets in sterile injury. Science 371 6533 e595 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe0595 33674464 · DOI
  27. [27]Zhang W Wang X Ma J et al. 2022 Adaptive injectable carboxymethyl cellulose/poly (gamma-glutamic acid) hydrogels promote wound healing. Biomater Adv 136 212753 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.212753 35929335 · DOI
  28. [28]Xie C Gao Q Wang P et al. 2019 Structure-induced cell growth by 3D printing of heterogeneous scaffolds with ultrafine fibers. Mater Design 181 108092 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108092 · DOI
  29. [29]Laronda MM Rutz AL Xiao S et al. 2017 A bioprosthetic ovary created using 3D printed microporous scaffolds restores ovarian function in sterilized mice. Nat Commun 8 1 15261 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15261 28509899 PMC5440811 · DOI
  30. [30]Liang W He W Huang R et al. 2022 Peritoneum‐inspired Janus porous hydrogel with anti‐deformation, anti‐adhesion, and pro‐healing characteristics for abdominal wall defect treatment. Adv Mater 34 15 2108992 https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202108992 34981867 · DOI
  31. [31]Li Y Lv S Yuan H et al. 2021 Peripheral nerve regeneration with 3D printed bionic scaffolds loading neural crest stem cell derived Schwann cell progenitors. Adv Funct Mater 31 16 2010215 https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202010215 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, S., Huang, J., Xu, Z., Liu, Y., Ren, H., Li, Z., Chen, C., Chen, K., Wu, X., & Ren, J.
Affiliations
  • Nanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command (CN)
  • Nanjing First Hospital (CN)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Bioprinting
Publisher
AccScience Publishing
Published
2023-02-10
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
682
ISSN
  • 2424-7723 (ISSN-L)
  • 2424-8002
DOI
10.18063/ijb.682
PMC
PMC10236344
OpenAlex
W4321253642
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Bioprinting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (82270595)
  • Government of Jiangsu Province
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
peritoneal adhesions, melt electrowriting, mesothelial cells, cell seeding, cell proliferation, cell orientation, macrophage migration, peritoneal repair, cell tracking, abdominal surgery complications

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