Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026
Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
Published on: November 16, 2018
Postimplantation host tissue response and biodegradation of biologic versus polymer meshes implanted in an
G Pascual1, B Pérez-Köhler, M Rodríguez
1Department of Medical Specialties, Networking Research Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Faculty of Medicine, Alcalá University, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
Background:
This study compared the in vitro and in vivo behaviors at the peritoneal interface of a new polymer material (Bio-A) and of two biologic non-cross-linked materials (Tutomesh [Tuto] and Strattice [St]), all biodegradable.
Methods:
Omentum mesothelial cells from rabbits were seeded onto the three prosthetic materials tested. At 1, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h after implantation, mesothelial cover was performed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). In the in vivo study, 3 × 3 cm mesh fragments were placed on the parietal peritoneum of the same rabbits and fixed at the four corners with individual stitches. The implants were randomized such that six fragments of each material were implanted in nine animals (2 per animal). Adhesion formation was quantified by sequential laparoscopy and image analysis 3, 7, and 14 days after implantation. The animals were killed at 90 days, and the meshes were subjected to microscopy and immunohistochemistry.
Results:
The in vitro mesothelial cover was significantly greater for St than for Bio-A at each time point. The percentage of cover for St was also higher than for Tuto 16 and 24 h after seeding and higher for Tuto than for Bio-A at all time points. Compared with the biologic meshes, significantly higher adhesion percentages were recorded for Bio-A. At 90 days after implantation, differences in absorption measured as percentage of reduction in mesh thickness were detected among all the meshes. The least absorbed was St. The neoperitoneum thickness was significantly greater for the biologic meshes than for the polymer mesh, although this variable also differed significantly between St and Tuto. Macrophage counts were higher for Bio-A than for the biologic meshes.
Conclusions:
Greater mesothelial cover was observed in vitro for St. In vivo, adhesion formation and the macrophage response induced by Bio-A were greater than those elicited by the biologic materials. Bio-A and Tuto showed substantial biodegradation compared with St.
