4.5 Article

In vivo resorption of a biodegradable polyurethane foam, based on 1.4-butanediisocyanate:: A three-year subcutaneous implantation study

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 85A, Issue 4, Pages 972-982

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31574

Keywords

polyurethane; biodegradation; bioresorption; in vivo test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Degradable polyurethanes (PUs), based on aliphatic diisocyanates, can be very useful in tissue regeneration applications. Their long-term in vivo degradation has not been extensively investigated. In this study a biodegradable PU with copolyester soft segments Of DL-lactide/ F-caprolactone and hard segments synthesized from 1,4-butanediisocyanate was evaluated with regard to tissue response during degradation and, ultimately, the resorption of the material. Highly porous PU foam discs were subcutaneously implanted in rats and rabbits for intervals up to 3 years. A copolymer foam Of DL-lactide and c-caprolactone served as a control. The foams, the surrounding tissues and the draining lymph nodes were evaluated with light and electron microscopy. In the first stages of degradation the number of macrophages and giant cells increased. As the resorption stage set in their numbers gradually decreased. Electron microscopy showed macrophages containing pieces of PU. The size of the intracellular PU particles diminished and cells containing these remnants gradually disappeared after periods from I to 3 years. After 3 years an occasional, isolated macrophage with biomaterial remnants could be traced in both PU and copolymer explants. Single macrophages with biomaterial remnants were observed in the lymph nodes between 39 weeks and 1.5 years following implantation. It is concluded that the PU foam is biocompatible during degradation. After 3 years PU samples had been resorbed almost completely. These results indicate that the PU foam can be safely used as a biodegradable implant. (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available