4.8 Article

In vitro assessment of new embolic liquids prepared from preformed polymers and water-miscible solvents for aneurysm treatment

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 21, 期 8, 页码 803-811

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00243-4

关键词

embolic liquids; aneurysms; preformed polymers; water-miscible solvents; solubility parameters; toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of cerebral aneurysms by embolic liquids has been proposed as an alternative strategy to coil or balloon techniques. In order to assess the feasibility of this approach, a general screening of preformed polymers dissolved in biocompatible, water-miscible solvents has been carried out. The solubilizing capacity of the solvents has been evaluated by the solubility parameters approach. The viscosity of the solutions has been determined and the precipitation characteristics of the embolic liquids have been investigated in phosphate buffer solution pH 7.4 at 37 degrees C to mimic physiological conditions. The radiopaque agent bismuth (III) oxide was added to solutions having appropriate precipitation characteristics and the angiographic assessment, in an in vitro aneurysm model, were consistent with the precipitation properties and confirmed that only hard and coherent masses allowed satisfactory embolization. However, the solubilizing prediction using the calculation of the solubility parameters was only partially successful owing to the highly hydrophilic functional groups of the chosen solvents. This failing justifies the experimental screening that was carried out. This study pointed out that the frequently used solvent dimethyl sulfoxide could be replaced by more biocompatible solvents offering the possibility of using other preformed polymers. In conclusion, nine solutions of the selected polymer-solvent combinations could be used as embolic liquids for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms with respect to their satisfactory precipitation properties and viscosity. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.8
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