Evaluation of the biological tolerability of the starch-based medical device 4DryField® PH in vitro and in vivo a rat model

Purpose To evaluate in vitro cytotoxicity/biocompatibility as well as in vivo tolerability of the novel polysaccharide 4DryField® PH, certified for haemostasis and adhesion prevention. Methods In vitro cytotoxicity/viability testing according to ISO EN 10,993 using murine and human tumour cell lines incubated with 4DryField® PH (PlantTec Medical GmbH). Using a rat model the impact of 4DryField® PH on animals viability and in vivo effects were macro- and micropathologically assessed. Results In vitro testing revealed no cytotoxic effect of 4DryField® PH nor enhancement of viability to tumour cell lines. In vivo viability of rats was unimpaired by 4DryField® PH. Bodyweight loss in animals with abdominal injury plus treatment with 4DryField® PH was in the range of controls and less than in injured rats without treatment. At day 7 after surgery no formation of adhesions, neither macroscopic nor histological remnants nor signs of foreign body reaction were present in animals without injury. In animals with peritoneal injury and 4DryField® PH application, histopathological observation revealed minor residuals of polysaccharide in the depth of wound cavity embedded in a thickened subperitoneal layer; however, with a suggested intact neoperitoneum. The presence of mononuclear cells surrounding polysaccharide particles in varying states of degradation was observable as well. Conclusion 4DryField® PH is not cytotoxic and does not enhance viability of tumour cell lines. High dose of 4DryField® PH of 1.09 g/kg bodyweight is well tolerated and reduces weight loss in animals with peritoneal injury. The biocompatibility of 4DryField® PH can be rated as being excellent.

[1]  J. Klempnauer,et al.  High Reproducibility of Adhesion Formation in Rat with Meso-Stitch Approximation of Injured Cecum and Abdominal Wall , 2015, International journal of medical sciences.

[2]  M. Korell Combined Hemostasis and Adhesion Prevention with the Novel Agent 4DryField® PH—Initial Observations , 2014 .

[3]  A. Hackethal,et al.  A review of the problematic adhesion prophylaxis in gynaecological surgery , 2011, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  R. M. Kamel Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. , 2010, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[5]  P. Janmey,et al.  Wound healing and the immune response in swine treated with a hemostatic bandage composed of salmon thrombin and fibrinogen , 2009, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[6]  A. Seifalian,et al.  Topical haemostatic agents , 2008, The British journal of surgery.

[7]  N. Wetjen,et al.  COMPARATIVE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF TOPICAL HEMOSTATIC AGENTS IN A RAT NEUROSURGICAL MODEL , 2008, Neurosurgery.

[8]  J. Holst,et al.  Various local hemostatic agents with different modes of action; an in vivo comparative randomized vascular surgical experimental study. , 2007, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[9]  T. Murakami,et al.  Iatrogenic paraplegia caused by surgicel used for hemostasis during a thoracotomy: Report of a case , 1997, Surgery Today.

[10]  C. Duncan,et al.  Postoperative paraplegia secondary to the use of oxidized cellulose (Surgicel). , 2005, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[11]  A. Kaye,et al.  Persistence of Bioglue® in spinal dural repair , 2005, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[12]  Enrico Tessitore,et al.  The use of local agents: bone wax, gelatin, collagen, oxidized cellulose , 2004, European Spine Journal.

[13]  K. Robinson Controlling bleeding in the field: hemostatic powders and dressings debut in the prehospital setting. , 2004, Journal of emergency nursing: JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association.

[14]  Cheng-Ping Yu,et al.  Oxidized cellulose (Surgicel) granuloma mimicking a primary ovarian tumor. , 2002, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[15]  M. F. Ibrahim,et al.  A foreign body reaction to Surgicel mimicking an abscess following cardiac surgery. , 2002, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[16]  J. Campeau,et al.  Peritoneal repair and post-surgical adhesion formation. , 2001, Human reproduction update.

[17]  L. Kangas,et al.  Pre-clinical subdural tissue reaction and absorption study of absorbable hemostatic devices , 2001, Neurological research.

[18]  J. Zwischenberger,et al.  Comparison of two topical collagen-based hemostatic sponges during cardiothoracic procedures. , 1999, Journal of investigative surgery : the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research.

[19]  S. Perry,et al.  Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. , 1998, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[20]  G. Sandhu,et al.  Oxidized cellulose (Surgicel) granulomata mimicking tumour recurrence. , 1996, British journal of neurosurgery.

[21]  H. Ellis,et al.  Intestinal obstruction from adhesions--how big is the problem? , 1990, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.