4.5 Article

Comparison of Covered Laser-cut and Braided Respiratory Stents: From Bench to Pre-Clinical Testing

期刊

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 47, 期 8, 页码 1738-1747

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-019-02278-1

关键词

Stent development; Airway stenting; Animal trial; Sheep model; Nitinol stent

资金

  1. European Union [NMP3-SL-2012-280915]
  2. College of Engineering and Informatics at NUI Galway
  3. Structured Ph.D. Program in Biomedical Engineering and Regenerative Medicine (BMERM)
  4. Program for Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI) Cycle 5 (Strand 2)
  5. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung cancer patients often suffer from severe airway stenosis, the symptoms of which can be relieved by the implantation of stents. Different respiratory stents are commercially available, but the impact of their mechanical performance on tissue responses is not well understood. Two novel laser-cut and hand-braided nitinol stents, partially covered with polycarbonate urethane, were bench tested and implanted in Rhon sheep for 6weeks. Bench testing highlighted differences in mechanical behavior: the laser-cut stent showed little foreshortening when crimped to a target diameter of 7.5mm, whereas the braided stent elongated by more than 50%. Testing also revealed that the laser-cut stent generally exerted higher radial resistive and chronic outward forces than the braided stent, but the latter produced significantly higher radial resistive forces at diameters below 9mm. No migration was observed for either stent type in vivo. In terms of granulation, most stents exerted a low to medium tissue response with only minimal formation of granulation tissue. We have developed a mechanical and in vivo framework to compare the behavior of different stent designs in a large animal model, providing data, which may be employed to improve current stent designs and to achieve better treatment options for lung cancer patients.

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