FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Macromolecular bioscience2021; 21(10); e2100164; doi: 10.1002/mabi.202100164

In Vivo Versus In Vitro Degradation of a 3D Printed Resorbable Device for Ligation of Vascular Tissue in Horses.

Abstract: A resorbable 3D printed polydioxanone (PDO) device is manufactured to facilitate ligation of vascular tissue during surgery. The device must provide sufficient mechanical performance throughout the healing period. Therefore, degradation and mechanical performance of the device are investigated as a function of in vivo and in vitro aging. During aging the PDO device released cyclic and linear water-soluble products. In vivo aging resulted in higher relative number of linear oligomers in comparison to in vitro aging. A major loss of mechanical performance is observed after only 10 days in vivo and the Young's modulus (E) and tensile strength at break (σ ) decreased by 28% and 54%, respectively. This is in contrast to in vitro aging, where no loss of mechanical properties is observed during the same period. The in vivo aged devices exhibit clear holes in the matrices after 28 days, while apparent cracks are observed first after 140 days in vitro. These results highlight the sensitivity of the degradation process of resorbable devices with regards to the interactions of the device with the surrounding environment (tissues) and demonstrate the importance of in vivo testing as compliment to in vitro testing before clinical use of devices.
© 2021 The Authors. Macromolecular Bioscience published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-08-02 PubMed ID: 34339098DOI: 10.1002/mabi.202100164Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research focuses on studying the degradation and mechanical performance of a 3D printed resorbable device made from polydioxanone (PDO), specifically designed to assist with the ligation of vascular tissue during horse surgery. The results indicate that degradation in an in vivo setting, or within a living organism, differs significantly from degradation in an in vitro setting, or outside a living organism.

Polydioxanone Device Construction

  • Polydioxanone (PDO) is utilized for the construction of a 3D printed resorbable device. This device is intended to help with the ligation or tying off of vascular tissue during surgery in horses.
  • The device’s mechanical performance is a critical factor, as it needs to maintain its structural integrity throughout the healing process.

Evaluation of Degradation and Mechanical Performance

  • The research looks at the degradation of the device and its mechanical performance as a function of both in vivo (within a living organism) and in vitro (outside a living organism) aging.
  • The PDO device is observed to release cyclic and linear water-soluble products as it degrades over time.
  • Interestingly, in vivo aging resulted in a higher relative number of linear oligomers when compared to in vitro aging. Oligomers refer to short chains/particles that develop during the degradation process.
  • Significant loss of mechanical performance is observed after only 10 days of in vivo testing. The device’s Young’s modulus (a measure of stiffness) and tensile strength at break decrease by 28% and 54%, respectively.
  • In contrast, in vitro aging did not show any loss of mechanical properties over the same period.

Surface Changes During Aging

  • The surface of the PDO devices underwent alterations during the aging process. After 28 days in vivo, the devices showed clear holes. On the other hand, apparent cracks were observed first after 140 days of in vitro testing.

Implications of Findings

  • The differences in results from in vivo and in vitro testing indicate that the degradation process of resorbable devices is highly sensitive to their surrounding environment. Hence, in vivo testing is vital before medical devices can be deemed suitable for clinical use.
  • These findings emphasize that while in vitro testing provides valuable insight, it cannot wholly replicate or predict the behavior of a device within a living organism. Real-life, in vivo testing plays a critical role in the accurate assessment of such devices.

Cite This Article

APA
Adolfsson KH, Sjöberg I, Höglund OV, Wattle O, Hakkarainen M. (2021). In Vivo Versus In Vitro Degradation of a 3D Printed Resorbable Device for Ligation of Vascular Tissue in Horses. Macromol Biosci, 21(10), e2100164. https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.202100164

Publication

Macromolecular bioscience
ISSN: 1616-5195
NlmUniqueID: 101135941
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 21
Issue: 10
Pages: e2100164

Researcher Affiliations

Adolfsson, Karin H
  • Department of Fibre and Polymer Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 100 44, Sweden.
Sjöberg, Ida
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Box 7054, 750 07, Sweden.
Höglund, Odd V
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Box 7054, 750 07, Sweden.
Wattle, Ove
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Box 7054, 750 07, Sweden.
Hakkarainen, Minna
  • Department of Fibre and Polymer Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 100 44, Sweden.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Elastic Modulus
  • Horses
  • Materials Testing
  • Printing, Three-Dimensional
  • Tensile Strength

References

This article includes 51 references
  1. C. K. S. Pillai, C. P. Sharma, J. Biomater. Appl. 2010, 25, 291.
  2. D. K. Gilding, A. M. Reed, Polymer 1979, 20, 1459.
  3. K. Rajbabu, N. J. Barber, W. Choi, G. H. Muir, Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2007, 89, 359.
  4. J. A. Martins, A. A. Lach, H. L. Morris, A. J. Carr, P.-A. Mouthuy, J. Biomater. Appl. 2020, 34, 902.
  5. M. Mohseni, D. Hutmacher, N. Castro, Polymers 2018, 10, 40.
  6. J. A. Ray, N. Doddi, D. Regula, J. A. Williams, A. Melveger, Surg., Gynecol. Obstet. 1981, 153, 497.
  7. J-T. Hong, N-S. Cho, H-S. Yoon, T-H. Kim, M-S. Koh, W-G. Kim, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2006, 102, 737.
  8. H. L. Lin, C. C. Chu, D. Grubb, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1993, 27, 153.
  9. C. M. Kearney, C. T. Buckley, F. Jenner, P. Moissonnier, P. A. J. Brama, Equine Vet. J. 2014, 46, 494.
  10. J. N. Im, J. K. Kim, H-K. Kim, C. H. In, K. Y. Lee, W. H. Park, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2007, 92, 667.
  11. G. Molea, F. Schonauer, G. Bifulco, D. D'angelo, Br. J. Plast. Surg. 2000, 53, 137.
  12. S. M. Cokelaere, A. M. J. G. Martens, P. Wiemer, Vet. Surg. 2005, 34, 651.
  13. M. P. De Bont, Equine Vet. Educ. 2018, 30, 255.
  14. R. H. Carpenter, J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 1972, 718.
  15. C. S. Ferreira, A. Ferreira da Silva Caldas, A. P. Martinez de Abreu, F. Sartori, A. Maciel Crespilho, A. P. Ferreira, G. Mendes Gomes, K. da Cunha Peixoto, Jr., A. Maciel Crespilho, Andrology 2015, 4, 1000149.
  16. R. E. Werner, A. J. Straughan, D. Vezin, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1992, 200, 64.
  17. A. S. Macedo, Í. Dos Santos Dal-Bó, A. Mendes de Quadros, G. Brambatti, K. D. H. Lemos dos Reis, M. Veloso Brun, M. Meller Alievi, C. Afonso de Castro Beck5, Acta Sci. Vet. 2012, 40, 1.
  18. C. R. Almeida, T. Serra, M. I. Oliveira, J. A. Planell, M. A. Barbosa, M. Navarro, Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 613.
  19. O. V. Höglund, R. Hagman, K. Olsson, J. Mindemark, N. Borg, A.-S. Lagerstedt, Acta Vet. Scand. 2011, 53, 47.
  20. O. V. Höglund, J. Ingman, F. Södersten, K. Hansson, N. Borg, A.-S. Lagerstedt, BMC Res. Notes. 2014, 7, 825.
  21. K. Ishigaki, O. V. Höglund, K. Asano, Vet. Surg. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13623.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.13623google scholar: lookup
  22. M. Guvendiren, J. Molde, R. M. D. Soares, J. Kohn, ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 2, 1679.
  23. A. Ahlinder, S. Charlon, T. Fuoco, J. Soulestin, A. Finne-Wistrand, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2020, 181, 109372.
  24. S. Dånmark, A. Finne-Wistrand, K. Schander, M. Hakkarainen, K. Arvidson, K. Mustafa, A. C. Albertsson, Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 2035.
  25. J.-H. Shim, J.-Y. Won, J.-H. Park, J.-H. Bae, G. Ahn, C.-H. Kim, D.-H. Lim, D.-W. Cho, W.-S. Yun, E.-B. Bae, C.-M. Jeong, J.-B. Huh, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 899.
  26. L. Dong, S-J. Wang, X-R. Zhao, Y-F. Zhu, J-K. Yu, Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13412.
  27. M. Wiklund, I. Granswed, G. Nyman, Vet. Anaesth. Analg. 2017, 44, 1139.
  28. G. Nyman, S. Marntell, A. Edner, P. Funkquist, K. Morgan, G. Hedenstierna, Acta Vet. Scand. 2009, 51, 22.
  29. G. Adamus, M. Hakkarainen, A. Höglund, M. Kowalczuk, A.-C. Albertsson, Biomacromolecules 2009, 10, 1540.
  30. N. Aminlashgari, O. V. Höglund, N. Borg, M. Hakkarainen, Acta Biomater. 2013, 9, 6898.
  31. M. A. Sabino, S. González, L. Márquez, J. L. Feijoo, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2000, 69, 209.
  32. M. A. Sabino, J. Albuerne, A. J. Müller, J. Brisson, R. E. Prud'homme, Biomacromolecules 2004, 5, 358.
  33. G. Botelho, A. Queirós, P. Gijsman, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2000, 68, 35.
  34. J. M. Anderson, A. Rodriguez, D. T. Chang, Semin. Immunol. 2008, 20, 86.
  35. C. Ping Ooi, R. E. Cameron, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2002, 63, 280.
  36. L. Wu, J. Ding, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2005, 75A, 767.
  37. D. A. Müller, J. G. Snedeker, D. C. Meyer, J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2016, 11, 111.
  38. K. M. Tobias, C. E. Kidd, P.-Y. Mulon, X. Zhu, Vet. Surg. 2020, 49, 550.
  39. C-M. Han, E. Lih, S-K. Choi, T. M. Bedair, Y-J. Lee, W. Park, D. K. Han, J. S. Son, Y. K. Joung, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2018, 67, 396.
  40. S. A. Metz, N. Chegini, B. J. Masterson, Biomaterials 1990, 11, 41.
  41. D. Greenwald, S. Shumway, P. Albear, L. Gottlieb, J. Surg. Res. 1994, 56, 372.
  42. Z. Ma, Y. Wu, J. Wang, C. Liu, Regen. Biomater. 2017, 4, 207.
  43. M. Hakkarainen, A-C. Albertsson, S. Karlsson, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 1996, 52, 283.
  44. J. Cai, K. J. Zhu, S. L. Yang, Polymer 1998, 39, 4409.
  45. Y. Márquez, L. Franco, P. Turon, J. Martínez, J. Puiggalí, Polymers 2016, 8, 351.
  46. A. P. T. Pezzin, E. A. R. Duek, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2002, 78, 405.
  47. K.-H. Lee, C. C. Chu, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2000, 49, 25.
  48. I. Sjöberg, O. V. Höglund, O. Wattle, in ACVS Surgey Summit 2020, Virtual Sessions, Wiley, Veterinary Surgery, 2020, pp. 1-98.
  49. V. J. Tomazic-Jezic, K. Merritt, T. H. Umbreit, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2001, 55, 523.
  50. S.-C. Chen, X.-L. Wang, Y.-Z. Wang, K.-K. Yang, Z.-X. Zhou, G. Wu, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2007, 80A, 453.
  51. J. Zhang, Y. Duan, H. Sato, H. Tsuji, I. Noda, S. Yan, Y. Ozaki, Macromolecules 2005, 38, 8012.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Sjöberg I, Law E, Södersten F, Höglund OV, Wattle O. A preliminary investigation of the subcutaneous tissue reaction to a 3D printed polydioxanone device in horses. Acta Vet Scand 2023 Nov 20;65(1):48.
    doi: 10.1186/s13028-023-00710-0pubmed: 37986118google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,727 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.