CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsBone Tissue Engineering Materials

In Vivo Comparison of Synthetic Macroporous Filamentous and Sponge-like Skin Substitute Matrices Reveals Morphometric Features of the Foreign Body Reaction According to 3D Biomaterial Designs

Open access
Barsch, Friedrich, Mamilos, Andreas, Schmitt, Volker H., Babel, Maximilian, Winter, Lina, Wagner, Willi, Winther, Hinrich, Ottomann, Christian +4 more·2022·Cells
DOI 10.3390/cells11182834PMC PMC9496825
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Synthetic macroporous biomaterials are widely used in the field of skin tissue engineering to mimic membrane functions of the native dermis. Biomaterial designs can be subclassified with respect to their shape in fibrous designs, namely fibers, meshes or fleeces, respectively, and porous designs, such as sponges and foams. However, synthetic matrices often have limitations regarding unfavorable foreign body responses (FBRs). Severe FBRs can result in unfavorable disintegration and rejection of an implant, whereas mild FBRs can lead to an acceptable integration of a biomaterial. In this context, comparative in vivo studies of different three-dimensional (3D) matrix designs are rare. Especially, the differences regarding FBRs between synthetically derived filamentous fleeces and sponge-like constructs are unknown. In the present study, the FBRs on two 3D matrix designs were explored after 25 days of subcutaneous implantation in a porcine model. Cellular reactions were quantified histopathologically to investigate in which way the FBR is influenced by the biomaterial architecture. Our results show that FBR metrics (polymorph-nucleated cells and fibrotic reactions) were significantly affected according to the matrix designs. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the 3D matrix tissue interactions and can be useful for future developments of synthetically derived skin substitute biomaterials.

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 · 10.3390/cells11182834

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Several studies demonstrated that fibrotic capsule was formed around scaffolds with smooth surface.

    “In addition to crucial scaffold properties, several studies demonstrated that fibrotic capsule was formed around scaffolds with smooth surface [216].”

    From Resorbable Biomaterials Used for 3D Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [216]

    The Results (§3.3; page unavailable) report fibrous capsules around both scaffold types. The Discussion (§4.3; page unavailable) describes the filamentous scaffolds as smoother and reports thinner capsules around them than around the rougher sponge-like scaffolds. This supports capsule formation around smoother scaffolds, but this paper does not establish the claim that several studies demonstrated that finding. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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: 94

  1. [1]Olson J.L. Atala A. Yoo J.J. Tissue engineering: Current strategies and future directions Chonnam Med. J. 2011 47 1 13 10.4068/cmj.2011.47.1.1 22111050 PMC3214857 · DOI
  2. [2]Tartarini D. Mele E. Adult Stem Cell Therapies for Wound Healing: Biomaterials and Computational Models Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2015 3 206 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00206 26793702 PMC4707872 · DOI
  3. [3]Theoret C. Tissue engineering in wound repair: The three “R” s-repair, replace, regenerate Vet. Surg. 2009 38 905 913 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00585.x 20017846 · DOI
  4. [4]Greaves N.S. Iqbal S.A. Baguneid M. Bayat A. The role of skin substitutes in the management of chronic cutaneous wounds Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2013 21 194 210 10.1111/wrr.12029 23437811 · DOI
  5. [5]Markeson D. Pleat J.M. Sharpe J.R. Harris A.L. Seifalian A.M. Watt S.M. Scarring, stem cells, scaffolds and skin repair J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2015 9 649 668 10.1002/term.1841 24668923 · DOI
  6. [6]Keane T.J. Badylak S.F. Biomaterials for tissue engineering applications Semin. Pediatr. Surg. 2014 23 112 118 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.06.010 24994524 · DOI
  7. [7]Kirsner R.S. Bohn G. Driver V.R. Mills J.L. Sr. Nanney L.B. Williams M.L. Wu S.C. Human acellular dermal wound matrix: Evidence and experience Int. Wound J. 2015 12 646 654 10.1111/iwj.12185 24283346 PMC7950764 · DOI
  8. [8]Chandika P. Ko S.C. Jung W.K. Marine-derived biological macromolecule-based biomaterials for wound healing and skin tissue regeneration Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015 77 24 35 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.02.050 25783018 · DOI
  9. [9]Bi H. Jin Y. Current progress of skin tissue engineering: Seed cells, bioscaffolds, and construction strategies Burn. Trauma 2013 1 63 72 10.4103/2321-3868.118928 PMC4978104 27574627 · DOI
  10. [10]Zhong S.P. Zhang Y.Z. Lim C.T. Tissue scaffolds for skin wound healing and dermal reconstruction WIREs Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2010 2 510 525 10.1002/wnan.100 20607703 · DOI
  11. [11]Del Bakhshayesh A.R. Annabi N. Khalilov R. Akbarzadeh A. Samiei M. Alizadeh E. Alizadeh-Ghodsi M. Davaran S. Montaseri A. Recent advances on biomedical applications of scaffolds in wound healing and dermal tissue engineering Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018 46 691 705 10.1080/21691401.2017.1349778 28697631 · DOI
  12. [12]Cronin H. Goldstein G. Biologic skin substitutes and their applications in dermatology Dermatol. Surg. 2013 39 30 34 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2012.02561.x 22928551 · DOI
  13. [13]Metcalfe A.D. Ferguson M.W. Bioengineering skin using mechanisms of regeneration and repair Biomaterials 2007 28 5100 5113 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.031 17688942 · DOI
  14. [14]Bottcher-Haberzeth S. Biedermann T. Reichmann E. Tissue engineering of skin Burns 2010 36 450 460 10.1016/j.burns.2009.08.016 20022702 · DOI
  15. [15]Hodgkinson T. Bayat A. Dermal substitute-assisted healing: Enhancing stem cell therapy with novel biomaterial design Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2011 303 301 315 10.1007/s00403-011-1131-2 21365208 · DOI
  16. [16]Janouskova O. Synthetic polymer scaffolds for soft tissue engineering Physiol. Res. 2018 67 S335 S348 10.33549/physiolres.933983 30379554 · DOI
  17. [17]Ikada Y. Challenges in tissue engineering J. R. Soc. Interface 2006 3 589 601 10.1098/rsif.2006.0124 16971328 PMC1664655 · DOI
  18. [18]Brusselaers N. Pirayesh A. Hoeksema H. Richters C.D. Verbelen J. Beele H. Blot S.I. Monstrey S. Skin replacement in burn wounds J. Trauma 2010 68 490 501 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181c9c074 20154563 · DOI
  19. [19]Ojeh N. Pastar I. Tomic-Canic M. Stojadinovic O. Stem Cells in Skin Regeneration, Wound Healing, and Their Clinical Applications Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015 16 25476 25501 10.3390/ijms161025476 26512657 PMC4632811 · DOI
  20. [20]Hogrebe N.J. Reinhardt J.W. Gooch K.J. Biomaterial microarchitecture: A potent regulator of individual cell behavior and multicellular organization J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2017 105 640 661 10.1002/jbm.a.35914 27682265 · DOI
  21. [21]Chaudhari A.A. Vig K. Baganizi D.R. Sahu R. Dixit S. Dennis V. Singh S.R. Pillai S.R. Future Prospects for Scaffolding Methods and Biomaterials in Skin Tissue Engineering: A Review Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016 17 1974 10.3390/ijms17121974 27898014 PMC5187774 · DOI
  22. [22]Yildirimer L. Thanh N.T. Seifalian A.M. Skin regeneration scaffolds: A multimodal bottom-up approach Trends Biotechnol. 2012 30 638 648 10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.08.004 22981509 · DOI
  23. [23]Tenenhaus M. Rennekampff H.O. Current Concepts in Tissue Engineering: Skin and Wound Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016 138 42s 50s 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002685 27556774 · DOI
  24. [24]Nicholas M.N. Jeschke M.G. Amini-Nik S. Methodologies in creating skin substitutes Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2016 73 3453 3472 10.1007/s00018-016-2252-8 27154041 PMC4982839 · DOI
  25. [25]Van der Veen V.C. van der Wal M.B. van Leeuwen M.C. Ulrich M.M. Middelkoop E. Biological background of dermal substitutes Burns 2010 36 305 321 10.1016/j.burns.2009.07.012 19897310 · DOI
  26. [26]Cosson S. Otte E.A. Hezaveh H. Cooper-White J.J. Concise review: Tailoring bioengineered scaffolds for stem cell applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2015 4 156 164 10.5966/sctm.2014-0203 25575526 PMC4303362 · DOI
  27. [27]Bhardwaj N. Sow W.T. Devi D. Ng K.W. Mandal B.B. Cho N.J. Silk fibroin-keratin based 3D scaffolds as a dermal substitute for skin tissue engineering Integr. Biol. 2015 7 53 63 10.1039/C4IB00208C 25372050 · DOI
  28. [28]Jimenez P.A. Jimenez S.E. Tissue and cellular approaches to wound repair Am. J. Surg. 2004 187 56s 64s 10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00305-2 15147993 · DOI
  29. [30]Demirbag B. Huri P.Y. Kose G.T. Buyuksungur A. Hasirci V. Advanced cell therapies with and without scaffolds Biotechnol. J. 2011 6 1437 1453 10.1002/biot.201100261 22162495 · DOI
  30. [31]Yu H. Peng J. Xu Y. Chang J. Li H. Bioglass Activated Skin Tissue Engineering Constructs for Wound Healing ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016 8 703 715 10.1021/acsami.5b09853 26684719 · DOI
  31. [32]Dieckmann C. Renner R. Milkova L. Simon J.C. Regenerative medicine in dermatology: Biomaterials, tissue engineering, stem cells, gene transfer and beyond Exp. Dermatol. 2010 19 697 706 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2010.01087.x 20545761 · DOI
  32. [33]Peramo A. Marcelo C.L. Bioengineering the skin-implant interface: The use of regenerative therapies in implanted devices Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2010 38 2013 2031 10.1007/s10439-010-9937-1 20140520 · DOI
  33. [34]Felder J.M. 3rd Goyal S.S. Attinger C.E. A systematic review of skin substitutes for foot ulcers Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012 130 145 164 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318254b1ea 22743881 · DOI
  34. [35]Aamodt J.M. Grainger D.W. Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response Biomaterials 2016 86 68 82 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.02.003 26890039 PMC4785021 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [36]Ong S.M. Biswas S.K. Wong S.C. MicroRNA-mediated immune modulation as a therapeutic strategy in host-implant integration Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2015 88 92 107 10.1016/j.addr.2015.05.013 26024977 · DOI
  36. [37]Sides C.R. Stenken J.A. Microdialysis sampling techniques applied to studies of the foreign body reaction Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2014 57 74 86 10.1016/j.ejps.2013.11.002 24269987 PMC4004681 · DOI
  37. [38]Brochhausen C. Schmitt V.H. Rajab T.K. Planck C.N.E. Krämer B. Tapprich C. Wallwiener M. Hierlemann H. Planck H. Kirkpatrick C.J. Mesothelial morphology and organisation after peritoneal treatment with solid and liquid adhesion barriers—A scanning electron microscopical study J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2012 23 1931 1939 10.1007/s10856-012-4659-6 22573064 · DOI
  38. [39]Brochhausen C. Schmitt V.H. Mamilos A. Schmitt C. Planck C.N.E. Rajab T.K. Hierlemann H. Kirkpatrick C.J. Expression of CD68 positive macrophages in the use of different barrier materials to prevent peritoneal adhesions-an animal study J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2017 28 15 10.1007/s10856-016-5821-3 27995493 PMC5167770 · DOI
  39. [40]Morris A.H. Stamer D.K. Kyriakides T.R. The host response to naturally-derived extracellular matrix biomaterials Semin. Immunol. 2017 29 72 91 10.1016/j.smim.2017.01.002 28274693 · DOI · Paper page
  40. [41]Schmitt V.H. Mamilos A. Schmitt C. Neitzer-Planck C.N.E. Rajab T.K. Hollemann D. Wagner W. Krämer B. Hierlemann H. Kirkpatrick C.J. Tissue response to five commercially available peritoneal adhesion barriers—A systematic histological evaluation J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2018 106 598 609 10.1002/jbm.b.33835 28263453 · DOI
  41. [42]Schmitt C.N.P.V.H. Planck C.N. Kramer B. Mamilos A. Rajab T.K. Hollemann D. Wallwiener C. Hierlemann H. Planck H. Kirkpatrick C.J. Histological and Immunohistological Evaluation of the Tissue Response of a New Barrier Material Based on D,L-Polylactide, Trimethylene Carbonate and Caprolactone to Prevent Peritoneal Adhesion Formation J. Tissue Sci. Eng. 2014 5 1000138 10.4172/2157-7552.1000138 · DOI
  42. [43]Li A. Dearman B.L. Crompton K.E. Moore T.G. Greenwood J.E. Evaluation of a novel biodegradable polymer for the generation of a dermal matrix J. Burn. Care Res. 2009 30 717 728 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181abffca 19506497 · DOI
  43. [44]Gibon E. Cordova L.A. Lu L. Lin T.H. Yao Z. Hamadouche M. Goodman S.B. The biological response to orthopedic implants for joint replacement. II: Polyethylene, ceramics, PMMA, and the foreign body reaction J. Biomed. Mater. Research. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2016 105 1685 1691 10.1002/jbm.b.33676 PMC5536115 27080740 · DOI
  44. [46]Van der Veen V.C. Boekema B.K. Ulrich M.M. Middelkoop E. New dermal substitutes Wound Repair Regen. 2011 19 (Suppl. S1) s59 s65 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2011.00713.x 21793967 · DOI
  45. [47]Petersen W. Rahmanian-Schwarz A. Werner J.O. Schiefer J. Rothenberger J. Hubner G. Schaller H.E. Held M. The use of collagen-based matrices in the treatment of full-thickness wounds Burns 2016 42 1257 1264 10.1016/j.burns.2016.03.017 27297940 · DOI
  46. [48]Zhou J. Hu W. Tang L. Non-invasive Characterization of Immune Responses to Biomedical Implants Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2016 44 693 704 10.1007/s10439-015-1470-9 26438448 · DOI
  47. [49]Marcos-Garces V. Harvat M. Aguilar P.M. Izquierdo A.F. Ruiz-Sauri A. Comparative measurement of collagen bundle orientation by Fourier analysis and semiquantitative evaluation: Reliability and agreement in Masson’s trichrome, Picrosirius red and confocal microscopy techniques J. Microsc. 2017 267 130 142 10.1111/jmi.12553 28319261 · DOI
  48. [50]Vega-Estrada A. Silvestre-Albero J. Rodriguez A.E. Rodriguez-Reinoso F. Gomez-Tejedor J.A. Antolinos-Turpin C.M. Bataille L. Alio J.L. Biocompatibility and Biomechanical Effect of Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes Implanted in the Corneal Stroma: A Proof of Concept Investigation J. Ophthalmol. 2016 2016 4041767 10.1155/2016/4041767 28116139 PMC5223050 · DOI
  49. [51]Schipke J. Brandenberger C. Rajces A. Manninger M. Alogna A. Post H. Muhlfeld C. Assessment of cardiac fibrosis: A morphometric method comparison for collagen quantification J. Appl. Physiol. 2017 122 1019 1030 10.1152/japplphysiol.00987.2016 28126909 · DOI
  50. [52]Xu S. Wang Y. Tai D.C.S. Wang S. Cheng C.L. Peng Q. Yan J. Chen Y. Sun J. Liang X. qFibrosis: A fully-quantitative innovative method incorporating histological features to facilitate accurate fibrosis scoring in animal model and chronic hepatitis B patients J. Hepatol. 2014 61 260 269 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.02.015 24583249 PMC4278959 · DOI
  51. [53]Restellini S. Goossens N. Clement S. Lanthier N. Negro F. Rubbia-Brandt L. Spahr L. Collagen proportionate area correlates to hepatic venous pressure gradient in non-abstinent cirrhotic patients with alcoholic liver disease World J. Hepatol. 2018 10 73 81 10.4254/wjh.v10.i1.73 29399280 PMC5787686 · DOI
  52. [54]Graca Y.L. Opolski A.C. Barboza B.E. Erbano B.O. Mazzaro C.C. Klostermann F.C. Sucharski E.E. Kubrusly L.F. Biocompatibility of Ricinus communis polymer with addition of calcium carbonate compared to titanium. Experimental study in guinea pigs Rev. Bras. Cir. Cardiovasc. 2014 29 272 278 25140479 PMC4389457
  53. [55]Daunoravicius D. Besusparis J. Zurauskas E. Laurinaviciene A. Bironaite D. Pankuweit S. Plancoulaine B. Herlin P. Bogomolovas J. Grabauskiene V. Quantification of myocardial fibrosis by digital image analysis and interactive stereology Diagn. Pathol. 2014 9 114 10.1186/1746-1596-9-114 24912374 PMC4072260 · DOI
  54. [56]Vasiljevic J.D. Popovic Z.B. Otasevic P. Popovic Z.V. Vidakovic R. Miric M. Neskovic A.N. Myocardial fibrosis assessment by semiquantitative, point-counting and computer-based methods in patients with heart muscle disease: A comparative study Histopathology 2001 38 338 343 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2001.01101.x 11318899 · DOI
  55. [57]Zhang W.J. Marx S.K. Laue C. Hyder A. Juergensen A. Bickel M. Schrezenmeir J. HOE 077 reduces fibrotic overgrowth around the barium alginate microcapsules Transplant. Proc. 2000 32 206 209 10.1016/S0041-1345(99)00938-0 10701026 · DOI
  56. [58]Zhang W.J. Laue C. Hyder A. Schrezenmeir J. Purity of alginate affects the viability and fibrotic overgrowth of encapsulated porcine islet xenografts Transplant. Proc. 2001 33 3517 3519 10.1016/S0041-1345(01)02419-8 11750500 · DOI
  57. [59]Zhang H. Sun L. Wang W. Ma X. Quantitative analysis of fibrosis formation on the microcapsule surface with the use of picro-sirius red staining, polarized light microscopy, and digital image analysis J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2006 76 120 125 10.1002/jbm.a.30491 16121387 · DOI
  58. [61]Tang L. Eaton J.W. Natural responses to unnatural materials: A molecular mechanism for foreign body reactions Mol. Med. 1999 5 351 358 10.1007/BF03402124 10415159 PMC2230429 · DOI
  59. [62]Socarras T.O. Vasconcelos A.C. Campos P.P. Pereira N.B. Souza J.P. Andrade S.P. Foreign body response to subcutaneous implants in diabetic rats PLoS ONE 2014 9 e110945 10.1371/journal.pone.0110945 25372281 PMC4220951 · DOI
  60. [63]Al-Maawi S. Orlowska A. Sader R. Kirkpatrick C.J. Ghanaati S. In vivo cellular reactions to different biomaterials-Physiological and pathological aspects and their consequences Semin. Immunol. 2017 29 49 61 10.1016/j.smim.2017.06.001 28647227 · DOI
  61. [64]Klopfleisch R. Jung F. The pathology of the foreign body reaction against biomaterials J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2017 105 927 940 10.1002/jbm.a.35958 27813288 · DOI · Paper page
  62. [65]Barsch F. Mamilos A. Babel M. Wagner W.L. Winther H.B. Schmitt V.H. Hierlemann H. Teufel A. Brochhausen C. Semiautomated quantification of the fibrous tissue response to complex three-dimensional filamentous scaffolds using digital image analysis J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2021 110 353 364 10.1002/jbm.a.37293 34390322 · DOI
  63. [66]Kyriakides T.R. Foster M.J. Keeney G.E. Tsai A. Giachelli C.M. Clark-Lewis I. Rollins B.J. Bornstein P. The CC chemokine ligand, CCL2/MCP1, participates in macrophage fusion and foreign body giant cell formation Am. J. Pathol. 2004 165 2157 2166 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63265-8 15579457 PMC1618731 · DOI · Paper page
  64. [67]Pavlides M. Birks J. Fryer E. Delaney D. Sarania N. Banerjee R. Neubauer S. Barnes E. Fleming K.A. Wang L.M. Interobserver Variability in Histologic Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis Using Categorical and Quantitative Scores Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2017 147 364 369 10.1093/ajcp/aqx011 28340131 PMC5848246 · DOI
  65. [68]Hadi A.M. Mouchaers K.T. Schalij I. Grunberg K. Meijer G.A. Vonk-Noordegraaf A. van der Laarse W.J. Belien J.A. Rapid quantification of myocardial fibrosis: A new macro-based automated analysis Cell. Oncol. 2011 34 343 354 10.1007/s13402-011-0035-7 PMC3162624 21538025 · DOI
  66. [69]Leite S.N. Junior A.A.J. Andrade T.A. Ddos S.M. Frade M.A. Experimental models of malnutrition and its effect on skin trophism An. Bras. Dermatol. 2011 86 681 688 10.1590/S0365-05962011000400009 21987133 · DOI
  67. [70]Caetano G.F. Frade M.A. Andrade T.A. Leite M.N. Bueno C.Z. Moraes A.M. Ribeiro-Paes J.T. Chitosan-alginate membranes accelerate wound healing J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2015 103 1013 1022 10.1002/jbm.b.33277 25220821 · DOI
  68. [71]Caetano G.F. Fronza M. Leite M.N. Gomes A. Frade M.A. Comparison of collagen content in skin wounds evaluated by biochemical assay and by computer-aided histomorphometric analysis Pharm. Biol. 2016 54 2555 2559 10.3109/13880209.2016.1170861 27180834 · DOI
  69. [72]Yuan Y. Jin X. Fan Z. Li S. Lu Z. In vivo degradation of copolymers prepared from L-lactide, 1,3-trimethylene carbonate and glycolide as coronary stent materials J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2015 26 139 10.1007/s10856-015-5384-8 25716020 · DOI
  70. [73]Xia Z. Triffitt J.T. A review on macrophage responses to biomaterials Biomed. Mater. 2006 1 R1 R9 10.1088/1748-6041/1/1/R01 18458376 · DOI · Paper page
  71. [74]Lanao R.P.F. Jonker A.M. Wolke J.G. Jansen J.A. van Hest J.C. Leeuwenburgh S.C. Physicochemical properties and applications of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) for use in bone regeneration Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2013 19 380 390 10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0443 23350707 PMC3690090 · DOI
  72. [75]Subramanian A. Krishnan U.M. Sethuraman S. In vivo biocompatibility of PLGA-polyhexylthiophene nanofiber scaffolds in a rat model BioMed Res. Int. 2013 2013 390518 10.1155/2013/390518 23971031 PMC3736537 · DOI
  73. [76]DiEgidio P. Friedman H.I. Gourdie R.G. Riley A.E. Yost M.J. Goodwin R.L. Biomedical implant capsule formation: Lessons learned and the road ahead Ann. Plast. Surg. 2014 73 451 460 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000287 25046663 · DOI
  74. [78]Bygd H.C. Forsmark K.D. Bratlie K.M. The significance of macrophage phenotype in cancer and biomaterials Clin. Transl. Med. 2014 3 62 10.1186/s40169-014-0041-2 26932379 PMC4884036 · DOI
  75. [79]Julier Z. Park A.J. Briquez P.S. Martino M.M. Promoting tissue regeneration by modulating the immune system Acta Biomater. 2017 53 13 28 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.056 28119112 · DOI · Paper page
  76. [80]Meyerholz D.K. Lambertz A.M. Reznikov L.R. Ofori-Amanfo G.K. Karp P.H. McCray P.B. Welsh M.J. Stoltz D.A. Immunohistochemical Detection of Markers for Translational Studies of Lung Disease in Pigs and Humans Toxicol. Pathol. 2016 44 434 441 10.1177/0192623315609691 26511846 PMC4805467 · DOI
  77. [82]Serin G. Baylancicek S. Aksoy E. Polat S. Saglican Y. Inanli S. Evaluation of tissue response to Gore-Tex (expanded polytetrafluoroethylene) implantation J. Craniofacial Surg. 2013 24 1428 1430 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31828dcc06 23851824 · DOI
  78. [83]Christo S.N. Diener K.R. Bachhuka A. Vasilev K. Hayball J.D. Innate Immunity and Biomaterials at the Nexus: Friends or Foes BioMed Res. Int. 2015 2015 342304 10.1155/2015/342304 26247017 PMC4515263 · DOI
  79. [84]Salthouse T.N. Some aspects of macrophage behavior at the implant interface J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1984 18 395 401 10.1002/jbm.820180407 6234318 · DOI · Paper page
  80. [85]Li Y. Xiao Y. Liu C. The Horizon of Materiobiology: A Perspective on Material-Guided Cell Behaviors and Tissue Engineering Chem. Rev. 2017 117 4376 4421 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00654 28221776 · DOI
  81. [86]Feng B. Jinkang Z. Zhen W. Jianxi L. Jiang C. Jian L. Guolin M. Xin D. The effect of pore size on tissue ingrowth and neovascularization in porous bioceramics of controlled architecture in vivo Biomed. Mater. 2011 6 015007 10.1088/1748-6041/6/1/015007 21206002 · DOI
  82. [87]Sussman E.M. Halpin M.C. Muster J. Moon R.T. Ratner B.D. Porous implants modulate healing and induce shifts in local macrophage polarization in the foreign body reaction Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2014 42 1508 1516 10.1007/s10439-013-0933-0 24248559 · DOI · Paper page
  83. [88]Ward W.K. Slobodzian E.P. Tiekotter K.L. Wood M.D. The effect of microgeometry, implant thickness and polyurethane chemistry on the foreign body response to subcutaneous implants Biomaterials 2002 23 4185 4192 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00160-6 12194521 · DOI · Paper page
  84. [89]Hilborn J. Bjursten L.M. A new and evolving paradigm for biocompatibility J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2007 1 110 119 10.1002/term.4 18038399 · DOI
  85. [90]Blackwood K.A. McKean R. Canton I. Freeman C.O. Franklin K.L. Cole D. Brook I. Farthing P. Rimmer S. Haycock J.W. Development of biodegradable electrospun scaffolds for dermal replacement Biomaterials 2008 29 3091 3104 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.03.037 18448164 · DOI
  86. [91]Venugopal J. Ramakrishna S. Biocompatible nanofiber matrices for the engineering of a dermal substitute for skin regeneration Tissue Eng. 2005 11 847 854 10.1089/ten.2005.11.847 15998224 · DOI
  87. [92]Bryan N. Ashwin H. Chen R. Smart N.J. Bayon Y. Wohlert S. Hunt J.A. Evaluation of six synthetic surgical meshes implanted subcutaneously in a rat model J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2016 10 E305 E315 10.1002/term.1807 24123932 · DOI
  88. [93]Cao H. McHugh K. Chew S.Y. Anderson J.M. The topographical effect of electrospun nanofibrous scaffolds on the in vivo and in vitro foreign body reaction J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2010 93 1151 1159 10.1002/jbm.a.32609 PMC9069486 19768795 · DOI · Paper page
  89. [94]Kempf M. Miyamura Y. Liu P.Y. Chen A.C. Nakamura H. Shimizu H. Tabata Y. Kimble R.M. McMillan J.R. A denatured collagen microfiber scaffold seeded with human fibroblasts and keratinocytes for skin grafting Biomaterials 2011 32 4782 4792 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.03.023 21477857 · DOI
  90. [95]Chattopadhyay S. Raines R.T. Review collagen-based biomaterials for wound healing Biopolymers 2014 101 821 833 10.1002/bip.22486 24633807 PMC4203321 · DOI · Paper page
  91. [96]Romanova O.A. Grigor’ev T.E. Goncharov M.E. Rudyak S.G. Solov’yova E.V. Krasheninnikov S.T. Saprykin V.P. Sytina E.V. Chvalun S.N. Pal’tsev M.A. Chitosan as a Modifying Component of Artificial Scaffold for Human Skin Tissue Engineering Bull. Exp. Biol. Med. 2015 159 557 566 10.1007/s10517-015-3014-6 26395628 · DOI
  92. [97]Ghanaati S. Barbeck M. Detsch R. Deisinger U. Hilbig U. Rausch V. Sader R. Unger R.E. Ziegler G. Kirkpatrick C.J. The chemical composition of synthetic bone substitutes influences tissue reactions in vivo: Histological and histomorphometrical analysis of the cellular inflammatory response to hydroxyapatite, beta-tricalcium phosphate and biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics Biomed. Mater. 2012 7 015005 10.1088/1748-6041/7/1/015005 22287541 · DOI
  93. [98]Nyame T.T. Chiang H.A. Leavitt T. Ozambela M. Orgill D.P. Tissue-Engineered Skin Substitutes Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015 136 1379 1388 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001748 26595026 · DOI
  94. [99]Major M.R. Wong V.W. Nelson E.R. Longaker M.T. Gurtner G.C. The foreign body response: At the interface of surgery and bioengineering Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015 135 1489 1498 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001193 25919260 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barsch, F., Mamilos, A., Schmitt, V. H., Babel, M., Winter, L., Wagner, W., Winther, H., Ottomann, C., Niedermair, T., Schreml, S., Hierlemann, H., & Brochhausen, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin (DE)
  • PolyMedics Innovations GmbH, 73770 Denkendorf, Germany
Corresponding author
Brochhausen, Christoph
ORCID
Venue
Cells
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-09-11
Volume
11
Issue
18
Pages
2834
ISSN
2073-4409 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/cells11182834
PMC
PMC9496825
OpenAlex
W4295592813
Cited by
6
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 4
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cells (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
Keywords
foreign body reaction, skin substitutes, skin tissue engineering, subcutaneous implantation, porcine model, histopathology
MeSH terms
Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Fibrosis, Foreign-Body Reaction, Swine, Skin, Artificial, Tissue Engineering

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