English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose . To investigate  in vivo  the acute host response to an alternative implant designed for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP).  Methods . A biodegradable scaffold was produced from poly-L-lactic acid (PLA) using the electrospinning technique. Human and rat adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) were isolated and characterized by fluorescence-activated cell sorting and differentiation assays. PLA scaffolds were seeded and cultured for 2 weeks with human or rat ADSCs. Scaffolds with and without human or rat ADSCs were implanted subcutaneously on the abdominal wall of rats. After 3 and 7 days, 6 animals from each group were sacrificed. Sections from each sample were analyzed by Haematoxylin and Eosin staining, Sirius red staining, and immunohistochemistry for CD68, PECAM-1, and collagen I and III.  Results . Animals responded to the scaffolds with an acute macrophage response. After 7 days of implantation, there was extensive host cell penetration, new blood vessel formation, and new collagen deposition throughout the full thickness of the samples without obvious differences between cell-containing and cell-free scaffolds.  Conclusions . The acute  in vivo  response to an alternative implant (both with and without cells) for the treatment of SUI and POP showed good acute integration into the host tissues.

AcuteIn VivoResponse to an Alternative Implant for Urogynecology