4.7 Article

Characterization and Evaluation of Injectable Biodegradable Polymer Multimodality Radiologic Markers in an In Vivo Murine Model

期刊

BIOMACROMOLECULES
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 1672-1679

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.1c01570

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the degradation rate and imaging effects of three biodegradable polymer markers in a mouse model, with significant differences observed in their visibility and absorption rate on CT and MRI.
Biodegradable polymer clips as multidimensional soft tissue biopsy markers were developed with better biocompatibility and imaging features. Unlike the commercially available metallic biopsy markers, the developed polymer clips are temporary implants with similar efficacies as metal markers in imaging and detection and get absorbed within the body with time. Herein, we evaluate the degradation rate of three resorbable polymer-based marker compounds in an in vivo murine model. Three polymers, abbreviated as Polymer A (PLGA poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)50:50), Polymer B (PLGA (poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)) 75:25), and Polymer C (polycaprolactone (PCL)), mixed with 20% lipiodol and 0.2% iron oxide and a control polymer were implanted into nine mice, followed by CT and MRI imaging. Images were evaluated for conspicuity. Specimens were examined for tissue analysis of iodine and iron contents. Significant differences in polymer resorption and visualization on CT were noted, particularly at 8 weeks (p < 0.027). Polymers A, B, and C were visible by CT at 4, 6, and 8 weeks, respectively. All marker locations were detected on MRI (T1 and SWI) after 24 weeks, with tattooing of the surrounding soft tissue by iron deposits. CT and MR visible polymer markers can be constructed to possess variable resorption, with stability ranging between 4 and 14 weeks post placement, making this approach suitable for distinct clinical scenarios with varying time points.

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