4.1 Article

Scanning electron microscopic assessment on surface morphology of preserved human amniotic membrane after gamma sterilisation

Journal

CELL AND TISSUE BANKING
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 15-24

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10561-012-9353-x

Keywords

Human amniotic membrane; Air dried; Glycerol preserved; Gamma irradiation; SEM; Cell morphology

Funding

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA [16099/RO]
  2. Malaysian Technology Development Cooperation [304/PPSP.6150093.M130]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human amniotic membrane that has been processed and sterilised by gamma irradiation is widely used as a biological dressing in surgical applications. The morphological structure of human amniotic membrane was studied under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess effects of gamma radiation on human amniotic membrane following different preservation methods. The amniotic membrane was preserved by either air drying or submerged in glycerol before gamma irradiated at 15, 25 and 35 kGy. Fresh human amniotic membrane, neither preserved nor irradiated was used as the control. The surface morphology of glycerol preserved amnion was found comparable to the fresh amniotic membrane. The cells of the glycerol preserved was beautifully arranged, homogonous in size and tended to round up. The cell structure in the air dried preserved amnion seemed to be flattened and dehydrated. The effects of dehydration on intercellular channels and the microvilli on the cell surface were clearly seen at higher magnifications (10,000x). SEM revealed that the changes of the cell morphology of the glycerol preserved amnion were visible at 35 kGy while the air dried already changed at 25 kGy. Glycerol preservation method is recommended for human amniotic membrane as the cell morphological structure is maintained and radiation doses lower than 25 kGy for sterilization did not affect the appearance of the preserved amnion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available