Premium
Small fiber diameter fibro‐porous meshes: Tissue response sensitivity to fiber spacing
Author(s) -
Sanders J. E.,
Lamont S. E.,
Mitchell S. B.,
Malcolm S. G.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part a
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1552-4965
pISSN - 1549-3296
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.a.30259
Subject(s) - materials science , polygon mesh , volume fraction , fiber , porosity , perimeter , capsule , composite material , volume mesh , geometry , finite element method , mathematics , physics , mesh generation , biology , thermodynamics , botany
The purpose of this research was to determine if fiber spacing for small fiber diameter fibro‐porous meshes affected tissue response in vivo . Disk‐shaped polyurethane meshes, with mean fiber diameters of 7.6 μm and fiber spacing between 6 and 68 μm, were implanted in rat subcutaneous dorsum for 5‐week intervals and then prepared for light microscopy and morphological analysis. Results showed that implants with 12‐ to 68‐μm spacing had no histologically apparent fibrous capsule around the perimeter, a result different from that for 6‐μm spacing samples that had a capsule around a mean of 34.2% of the perimeter. For the 12‐ to 68‐μm spacing range, a mean of 21.0% of individual fibers within the meshes were encapsulated. Qualitatively, it appeared that larger fibers were encapsulated more frequently than smaller ones. When nodeless or baggy meshes were implanted, cells tended to cluster three or more fibers into groups and then encapsulate each group. Over the 6‐ to 68‐μm spacing range, cell nuclei volume fraction within the meshes increased from the 6‐ to the 29‐μm spacing ( p = 0.000) and then decreased from the 29‐ to the 68‐μm spacing ( p = 0.015). There was a trend of an increase in local vessel volume fraction with spacing over the 6‐ to 68‐μm range, though the relationship was weak. The results indicate that the reason for the lack of encapsulation of small‐fiber fibro‐porous meshes is not exclusively a pore boundary explanation, as is proposed for small‐pore porous meshes. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 72A: 335–342, 2005