5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Histopathological reaction over prosthesis surface covered with silicone and polyurethane foam implanted in rats Translated title: Reação histopatológica sobre a superfície de próteses cobertas por espuma de silicone e poliuretano implantadas em ratos

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          PURPOSES: To evaluate whether polyurethane foam leads more intense foreign-body reaction than silicone foam. To compare the vascularization of the capsules surrounding the foam implants. To investigate if the capsule of polyurethane foam implanted has greater amount of collagen than that of silicone foam. METHODS: Sixty-four young male Wistar rats were allocated into two groups: polyurethane foam and silicone foam. Subcutaneous discs were implanted into the dorsum of the animals in both groups. The capsules were assessed 28 days, two months, three months and six months postoperatively. Microscopic analysis with H&E stain was performed to evaluate the acute and chronic inflammatory process, foreign-body reaction and neovascularization. The analysis with picrosirius red was performed using the ImageProPlus software, to measure the number of vessels and collagen types I and III. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding the acute and chronic inflammatory processes. All rats from the polyurethane group, in all times, exhibited moderate or intense foreign-body reaction, with statistic significant difference (p=0.046) when compared with the silicone group, in which the reaction was either mild or nonexistent at two months. Vascular proliferation was significantly different between the groups at 28 days (p=0.0002), with the polyurethane group displaying greater neovascularization with H&E stain. Similar results were obtained with picrosirius red, which revealed in the polyurethane group a much greater number of vessels than in the silicone group (p=0.001). The collagen area was larger in the polyurethane group, significantly at 28 days (p=0.001) and at two months (p=0.030). CONCLUSIONS: Polyurethane foam elicited more intense foreign-body reaction when compared with silicone foam. The number of vessels was higher in the capsules of the polyurethane foam implants 28 days after the operation. The capsule of the polyurethane foam implants showed a greater amount of collagen than that of the silicone foam implants.

          Translated abstract

          OBJETIVOS: Avaliar, em relação ao uso de próteses, se a espuma de poliuretano apresenta maior reação de corpo estranho no organismo ao ser comparada com a espuma de silicone. Se há diferenças na vascularização das cápsulas formada ao redor das duas espumas implantadas. Se as cápsulas dos implantes de espuma de poliuretano apresentam quantidade maior de fibras colágenas ao serem comparadas com as da espuma de silicone. MÉTODOS: Utilizou-se 64 ratos albinos da linhagem Wistar, distribuídos em dois grupos de 34, grupo espuma de poliuretano e grupo espuma de silicone e receberam implantes discóides subcutâneos em seu dorso. Foram analisadas as cápsulas peri-implante com 28 dias, dois, três e seis meses após a introdução. A análise microscópica com H&E considerou as variáveis: inflamação aguda, inflamação crônica, reação de corpo estranho e neoformação vascular. A análise da coloração com picrosirius-red usando ImageProPlus considerou o número de vasos e colágeno tipo I e tipo III. RESULTADOS: Em relação à inflamação aguda e crônica, não foram encontradas diferenças estatísticas nos dois grupos. Todos os animais do grupo poliuretano, em todos os momentos, apresentaram reação de corpo estranho moderada ou intensa e foi encontrada diferença estatística significativa (p=0,046) ao serem comparados com o grupo silicone, cuja reação era ausente ou discreta aos dois meses. A neoformação vascular apresentou diferenças significativas nos dois grupos, aos 28 dias (p=0,0002); o grupo poliuretano com H&E apresentava quantidade maior de vasos neoformados e o mesmo ocorrendo com o picrosirius, cujo número de vasos era maior que no grupo silicone (p=0,001). A área de colágeno em todos os momentos foi maior no grupo poliuretano, sendo significativa com 28 dias (p=0,001) e com dois meses (p=0,030). CONCLUSÕES: A espuma de poliuretano apresentou maior reação de corpo estranho no organismo do que a espuma de silicone. A quantidade de vasos foi maior na cápsula da espuma de poliuretano com 28 dias após o implante. Aos 28 dias as cápsulas dos implantes de espuma de poliuretano apresentaram quantidade significativamente maior de colágeno do que as de espuma de silicone.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Silicone breast implant materials.

          This opinion article has been written on request because of the recent public controversy over silicone breast implants produced by a now-defunct company, Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) in France. More than 300,000 PIP devices have been implanted. The purposes of my article are to (1.) provide a general overview of silicone breast implant materials, (2.) to describe the general safety of these materials as reported to date, and (3.) to summarise current publicly available information about these aspects of the PIP prostheses. The materials covered are the silicone rubber from which the implant shells are made and the silicone gel used to fill the shell. The materials safety issues are biocompatibility (especially of the gel) and biodurability of the shell. The literature reviewed indicates that biocompatibility is not an issue with other current generation implants. However, biodurability is. A rough estimate of implant shell rupture rate is ~10+% at 10 years. Information is still emerging about the PIP implants. Initial regulatory disclosures suggest the PIP implants may have both biocompatibility and biodurability problems. They also suggest that PIP implants may have been produced using silicone materials not certified as medical grade. Governmental health and regulatory agencies are just now in the process of deciding what actions should be taken to protect patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The role of the macrophage in wound repair. A study with hydrocortisone and antimacrophage serum

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Periprosthetic breast capsules and immunophenotypes of inflammatory cells

              Background Silicone gel-containing breast implants have been widely used for aesthetic and reconstructive mammoplasty. The development of a periprosthetic capsule is considered a local reparative process against the breast implant in which a variety of inflammatory cells may appear. Nevertheless, only few reports have evaluated the immunophenotypes of those inflammatory cells. Herein, we aim to provide more information in this regard evaluating 40 patients with breast implants. Methods We studied the immunophenotype of the inflammatory cells of capsular implants using antibodies against lymphocytes (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, CD45, and CD30) and histiocytes (CD68). Percentages of CD3 and CD20 positive cells were compared using the unpaired Student's t test. Fisher's test was also used to compare Baker grades by implant type, implant profile, and location and the presence of inflammatory cells by implant type. Results The associations between Baker grades and implant type and location were statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.42 in both cases). However, the use of low profile implants was significantly associated (p = 0.002) with a higher proportion of Baker grades 3 and 4. We found evidence of inflammation in 92.5 % of all implant capsules, with a statistically significant (p = 0.036) higher proportion in textured breast implants. T cells predominated over B cells. Textured implants elicited a more marked response to T cells than smooth implants, with a similar proportion of helper and cytotoxic T cells. Textured implants showed statistically significant higher percentages of CD3 positive cells than smooth implants. Percentages of CD20 positive cells were similar in textured and smooth implants. Conclusions These results suggest that textured breast implants might induce a stronger local T cell immune response. Our findings could shed some light to understand the association of silicone breast implants and some cases of anaplastic large cell lymphomas. Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                acb
                Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
                Acta Cir. Bras.
                Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia (São Paulo )
                1678-2674
                December 2012
                : 27
                : 12
                : 866-873
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculdade Evangélica do Paraná Brazil
                Article
                S0102-86502012001200007
                10.1590/S0102-86502012001200007
                37cc9f09-1b24-46e1-bc1f-b21c02558907

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0102-8650&lng=en
                Categories
                SURGERY

                Surgery
                Prostheses and Implants,Polyurethanes,Silicones,Rats,Próteses e Implantes,Poliuretanos,Ratos
                Surgery
                Prostheses and Implants, Polyurethanes, Silicones, Rats, Próteses e Implantes, Poliuretanos, Ratos

                Comments

                Comment on this article