4.5 Article

Scaffolds from alternating block polyurethanes of poly(-caprolactone) and poly(ethylene glycol) with stimulation and guidance of nerve growth and better nerve repair than autograft

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 103, 期 7, 页码 2355-2364

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35372

关键词

alternating block polyurethanes; poly(-caprolactone) (PCL); poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG); scaffold; periphery nerve repair

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [20474001, 31171092, 21274083]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nerve repair scaffolds from novel alternating block polyurethanes (PUCL-alt-PEG) based on PCL and PEG without additional growth factors or proteins were prepared by a particle leaching method. The scaffolds have pore size 10-20 mu m and porosity 92%. Mechanical tests showed that the polyurethane scaffolds have maximum loads of 5.97 +/- 0.35 N and maximal stresses of 8.84 +/- 0.5 MPa. Histocompatiblity of the nerve repair scaffolds was tested in a SD rat model for peripheral nerve defect treatment. Two types of treatments including PUCL-alt-PEG scaffolds and autografts were compared in rat model. After 32 weeks, bridging of a 12 mm defect gap by the regenerated nerve was observed in all rats. The nerve regeneration was systematically characterized by sciatic function index (SFI), electrophysiology, histological assessment including HE staining, immunohistochemistry, ammonia sliver staining, Masson's trichrome staining and TEM observation. Results revealed that nerve repair scaffolds from PUCL-alt-PEG exhibit better regeneration effects compared to autografts. Electrophysiological recovery was seen in 90% and 87% of rats in PUCL-alt-PEG and autograft groups respectively. Biodegradation in vitro and in vivo shows good degradation match of PUCL-alt-PEG scaffolds with nerve regeneration. It demonstrates that plain nerve repair scaffolds from PUCL-alt-PEG biomaterials can achieve peripheral nerve regeneration satisfactorily. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 103: 2355-2364, 2015.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据