4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Abdominal wall repair using a biodegradable scaffold seeded with cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 317-321

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.10.019

关键词

tissue engineering; abdominal wall defect; reconstruction; animal model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: The repair of large abdominal wall defects is still a challenge for pediatric surgeons. Synthetic materials, however, may lead to high complication rates. This study was aimed at applying tissue-engineering methods to abdominal wall repair. Methods: 3T3 mouse fibroblasts were expanded in vitro. In the next step, a biodegradable material polyglycolic acid (PGA)-was actively seeded with 10(7) cells/sem of PGA scaffold. Culture medium (Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium with 10% fetal bovine serum) was changed every 6 hours after seeding cells on PGA fibers. Under general anaesthesia, C57BL/6J black mice underwent creation of a 2 x 3-cm abdominal wall defect (60%-70% of abdominal surface). The defect was repaired in the experimental group with the fibroblast-seeded PGA scaffold. In the first control group, the defect was covered with acellular PGA, and in the second control group, by skin closure. Animals were killed after 30 days to assess the histologic and gross findings. Results: No abdominal hernia was found in animals repaired with cell-seeded and acellular scaffolds. All animals with skin closure died within 7 days. In every case, tissue-engineered construct was thicker then in controls. Histologic and gross examination revealed a good neovascularisation in tissue engineered abdominal walls comparing to the acellular matrix. There was no intensive scar formation between abdominal wall and skin. Conclusions: Engineered soft tissue constructs can provide structural replacement of severe and large abdominal wall defects. Tissue engineering in the near future will possibly enter clinical practice. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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