4.5 Article

Regenerated silk fibroin (RSF) electrostatic spun fibre composite with polypropylene mesh for reconstruction of abdominal wall defects in a rat model

Journal

ARTIFICIAL CELLS NANOMEDICINE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 425-434

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21691401.2019.1709858

Keywords

Electrostatic spinning; abdominal wall; regenerated silk fibroin adhesion

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81470792]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai [15ZR1425100]
  3. Shanghai Hospital Development Centre [16CR4010A]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Abdominal wall defects are associated with abdominal wall surgery, infection and tumour resection. Polypropylene (PP) mesh, which has excellent mechanical strength, is currently the primary clinical repair material. In repairing the abdominal wall, the mesh can erode the bowel and cause other problems. Constructing a barrier that induces a weak inflammatory response and promotes rapid recovery of the peritoneum is important. We used electrospinning technology to construct a silk fibroin coating on the abdominal surface of a PP patch. A rat model was used to compare the inflammatory responses, regeneration of peritoneal tissue, and antiadhesion effects of electrospun regenerated silk fibroin (RSF) coatings, polycaprolactone (PCL) coatings, and noncoated PP meshes. The inflammatory responses, antiadhesion fractions, and areas of RSF and PCL were better than those of PP at 6 weeks. RSF was associated with complete peritoneal regeneration, in contrast to PCL. At 12 weeks, the structure of the PCL peritoneum was unstable, and the adhesion fraction and area were significantly higher than those of RSF. The intact peritoneum could not be effectively regenerated. The RSF group exhibited lower IL-6 levels than the PCL and PP groups but higher VEGF, IL-10 and TGF-beta levels, making RSF more conducive to the regeneration of peritoneal and abdominal wall tissues.

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