4.7 Article

Biomimetic double-sided polypropylene mesh modified by DOPA and ofloxacin loaded carboxyethyl chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol-polycaprolactone nanofibers for potential hernia repair applications

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.09.229

关键词

Polypropylene hernia mesh; Surface modification; Prevention of adhesion; Antibacterial activity; Carboxyethyl chitosan; 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylalanine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polypropylene (PP) meshes are the most widely used as hernioplasty prostheses. As far as hernia repair is concerned, bacterial contamination and tissue adhesion would be the clinical issues. Moreover, an optimal mesh should assist the healing process of hernia defect and avoid undesired prosthesis displacements. In this present study, the commercial hernia mesh was modified to solve the mentioned problems. Accordingly, a new bifunctional PP mesh with anti-adhesion and antibacterial properties on the front and adhesion properties (reduce undesired displacements) on the backside was prepared. The backside of PP mesh was coated with polycaprolactone (PCL) nanofibers modified by mussel-inspired L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (L-DOPA) bioadhesive. The front side was composed of two different nanofibrous mats, including hybrid and two-layered mats with different antibacterial properties, drug release, and biodegradation behavior, which were based on PCL nanofibers and biomacromolecule carboxyethyl-chitosan (CECS)/polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) nanofibers containing different ofloxacin amounts. The anti-adhesion, antibacterial, and biocompatibility studies were done through in-vitro experiments. The results revealed that DOPA coated PCL/PP/hybrid meshes containing ofloxacin below 20 wt% possessed proper cell viability, AdMSCs adhesion prevention, and excellent antibacterial efficiency. Moreover, DOPA modifications not only enhanced the surface properties of the PP mesh but also improved cell adhesion, spreading, and proliferation. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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