4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Tissue engineering of a human sized and shaped auricle using a mold

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 114, 期 5, 页码 867-870

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200405000-00015

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The creation of a tissue-engineered auricle was initially successful in an immunocompromised nude mouse model. Subsequently, an immunocompetent porcine model successfully generated a helical construct. We wished to evaluate the novel technique of using a mold to create a complete, anatomically refined auricle in a large animal model. Methods: Mixtures of autogenous chondrocytes and biodegradable polymers were used inside a perforated, auricle shaped hollow gold mold. Three biodegradable polymers (calcium alginate, pluronic F-127, and polyglycolic acid) were used to retain the seeded chondrocytes inside the mold. These molds, along with a control, were implanted subcutaneously in the abdominal area of 10 animals (pigs and sheep). The constructs were removed after 8 to 20 weeks and were assessed by gross morphology and histology. Results: All the gold implants were well tolerated by the animals. The implants using calcium alginate (n = 3) generated constructs of the exact shape and size of a normal human ear; the histology demonstrated mostly normal cartilage with some persistent alginate. The implants with pluronic F-127 (n = 3) resulted in cartilage with essentially normal histology, although leakage outside the molds and external cartilage generation was noted. Polyglycolic acid implants (n = 3) produced no useful cartilage because of an inflammatory reaction with fibrosis. The empty control mold (n = 1) demonstrated only a very small amount of fibrous tissue inside. Conclusion: A tissue-engineered human sized auricle of normal anatomic definition can be generated in an immunocompetent large-animal model using a mold technique. Although further refinements will be necessary, the technique appears promising for potential use in patients with microtia.

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