4.5 Article

An omentum-cultured 3D-printed artificial trachea: in vivo bioreactor

期刊

ARTIFICIAL CELLS NANOMEDICINE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 S1131-S1140

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21691401.2018.1533844

关键词

Trachea; tissue engineering; scaffold; 3D printing; omentum

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI17C1229]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea Government, Republic of Korea [NRF-2017R1D1A1B04034145]
  3. Hallym University Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the prior implantation of a 3D-printed polycaprolactone (PCL) artificial trachea in the omentum is beneficial for revascularization of the scaffold and reduces associated complications in the reconstruction of a circumferential tracheal defect. Ten New Zealand rabbits were divided into 2 groups: (1) PCL-OC group (PCL scaffold cultured in omentum for 2weeks before transplantation) and (2) PCL group. In the PCL-OC group, newly formed connective tissue completely covered the luminal surface of the scaffold with mild inflammation at 2weeks postoperatively; a minor degree of stenosis was noted at 8weeks postoperatively. The PCL group showed scaffold exposure without any tissue regeneration at 2weeks postoperatively, and a moderate degree of luminal stenosis 6weeks after implantation. Histology revealed highly organized regenerated tissue composed of ciliated respiratory epithelium, and submucosal layer in the PCL-OC group. Neo-cartilage regeneration was noted in part of the regenerated tissue. The PCL group demonstrated severe inflammation and an unorganized structure compared to that of the PCL-OC group. In vivo omentum culture of the tracheal scaffold before transplantation is beneficial for rapid re-epithelialization and revascularization of the scaffold. It also prevents postoperative luminal stenosis.

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