3.8 Review

Hemocompatibility, biocompatibility, inflammatory and in vivo studies of primary reference materials low-density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane:: A review

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 5, 页码 467-477

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.1043

关键词

primary reference materials; low-density polyethylene; polydimethylsiloxane; biocompatibility; hemocompatibility; inflammatory response; in vivo studies; tissue reactions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 1984, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polymethylsiloxane (PDMS), two primary reference materials (PRM), were made available by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) as discriminatory tools for the validation of standardized and novel in vitro and in vivo tests in the evaluation of biomaterials. This article reviews the results and conclusions obtained by several studies investigating the hemocompatibility, in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in vivo tissue reactions of these two reference materials. Variable results obtained with LDPE and PDMS in ex vivo hemocompatibility studies were attributed to the type of animal model used, the flow velocity of the circulating blood, the time of exposure, and the methodology used to measure blood cell adhesion or activation at the surface of the materials. In contrast, both the LDPE and PDMS appeared to be suitable reference materials when used in in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in vivo studies. However, caution must be taken when interpreting the results, because gamma sterilization of these two materials as well as their origin (for example PDMS) are two critically important factors. In conclusion, we see a definite need for standardized hemocompatible parameters and better high-quality hemocompatibility studies on PRM. This review also suggests other materials as potential PRM candidates, namely, Biomer((R)) and Intra-medic (TM) polyethylene. (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons.

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

3.8
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