An in vivo analysis of Miromesh--a novel porcine liver prosthetic created by perfusion decellularization.

BACKGROUND Bioprosthetics derived from human or porcine dermis and intestinal submucosa have dense, homogenous, aporous collagen structures that potentially limit cellular penetration, undermining the theoretical benefit of a "natural" collagen scaffold. We hypothesized that Miromesh-a novel prosthetic derived from porcine liver by perfusion decellularization-provides a more optimal matrix for tissue ingrowth. METHODS Thirty rats underwent survival surgery that constituted the creation of a 4 × 1 cm abdominal defect and simultaneous bridged repair. Twenty rats were bridged with Miromesh, and 10 rats were bridged with non-cross-linked porcine dermis (Strattice). Ten Miromesh and all 10 Strattice were rinsed in vancomycin solution and inoculated with 10(4) colony-forming units of green fluorescent protein-labeled Staphylococcus aureus (GFP-SA) after implantation. Ten Miromesh controls were neither soaked nor inoculated. No animals received systemic antibiotics. All animals were euthanized at 90 d and underwent an examination of their gross appearance before being sectioned for quantitative bacterial culture and histologic grading. A pathologist scored specimens (0-4) for cellular infiltration, acute inflammation, chronic inflammation, granulation tissue, foreign body reaction, and fibrous capsule formation. RESULTS All but one rat repaired with Strattice survived until the 90-d euthanization. All quantitative bacterial cultures for inoculated specimens were negative for GFP-SA. Of nine Strattice explants, none received a cellular infiltration score >0, consistent with a poor tissue-mesh interface observed grossly. Of 10 Miromesh explants also inoculated with GFP-SA, seven of 10 demonstrated cellular infiltration with an average score of +2.7 ± 0.8, whereas sterile Miromesh implants received an average score of 0.8 ± 1.0. Two inoculated Miromesh implants demonstrated acute inflammation and infection on histology. CONCLUSIONS A prosthetic generated from porcine liver by perfusion decellularization provides a matrix for superior cellular infiltration compared with non-cross-linked porcine dermis.

[1]  Wendell Q. Sun,et al.  Process-induced extracellular matrix alterations affect the mechanisms of soft tissue repair and regeneration , 2013, Journal of tissue engineering.

[2]  D. Hutmacher,et al.  In vitro characterization of natural and synthetic dermal matrices cultured with human dermal fibroblasts. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[3]  Harald C Ott,et al.  Organ engineering based on decellularized matrix scaffolds. , 2011, Trends in molecular medicine.

[4]  Jeffrey R Scott,et al.  Analysis of Acellular Dermal Matrix Integration and Revascularization following Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction in a Clinically Relevant Large-Animal Model , 2013, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[5]  B. Matthews,et al.  Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[6]  S. Badylak,et al.  Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. , 2001, The Journal of surgical research.

[7]  M. Rosen,et al.  Bacterial clearance of biologic grafts used in hernia repair: an experimental study , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[8]  E. Middelkoop,et al.  Biological background of dermal substitutes. , 2010, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[9]  S. Sauerland,et al.  Primary incisional hernia repair with or without polypropylene mesh: a report on 384 patients with 5-year follow-up , 2005, Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.

[10]  M. Rosen,et al.  Effect of surgical wound classification on biologic graft performance in complex hernia repair: an experimental study. , 2013, Surgery.

[11]  R. Segan.  A Response to “Major Complications Associated With Xenograft Biologic Mesh Implantation in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction” (Harth KC, Rosen MJ. Surg Innov. 2009;16:324-329) and Discussion of the MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) Database, FDA Regulation of Biologic Implants, an , 2010, Surgical innovation.

[12]  M. Rosen,et al.  In Vivo Analysis of the Morphologic Characteristics of Synthetic Mesh to Resist MRSA Adherence , 2012, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[13]  M. Hawn,et al.  Surgical progress in inguinal and ventral incisional hernia repair. , 2008, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[14]  M. Newman.  Comparison of Surgisis, AlloDerm, and Vicryl Woven Mesh Grafts for Abdominal Wall Defect Repair in an Animal Model , 2010, Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

[15]  E. Verdaasdonk,et al.  Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Suture Versus Mesh Repair of Incisional Hernia , 2004, Annals of surgery.

[16]  M. Shirtliff,et al.  Human Leukocytes Adhere to, Penetrate, and Respond to Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms , 2002, Infection and Immunity.

[17]  Christian Schuetz,et al.  Regeneration and orthotopic transplantation of a bioartificial lung , 2010, Nature Medicine.

[18]  M. Rosen,et al.  Does Presoaking Synthetic Mesh in Antibiotic Solution Reduce Mesh Infections? An Experimental Study , 2013, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[19]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. , 2004, Transplant immunology.

[20]  D. Oleynikov,et al.  Not all biologics are equal! , 2011, Hernia.

[21]  L. Morici,et al.  The Effect of Bacterial Infection on the Biomechanical Properties of Biological Mesh in a Rat Model , 2011, PloS one.

[22]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  Extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for functional tissue reconstruction. , 2014, Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine.

[23]  M. Dayton,et al.  Use of an absorbable mesh to repair contaminated abdominal-wall defects. , 1986, Archives of surgery.

[24]  J. Jeekel,et al.  A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  Alexander Huber,et al.  The effects of processing methods upon mechanical and biologic properties of porcine dermal extracellular matrix scaffolds. , 2010, Biomaterials.

[26]  T. Fabian,et al.  Management of Acute Full‐thickness Losses of the Abdominal Wall , 1981, Annals of surgery.

[27]  Thomas Shupe,et al.  Method for the decellularization of intact rat liver , 2010, Organogenesis.

[28]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. , 2011, Biomaterials.

[29]  Ricardo Londono,et al.  Biologic Scaffolds for Regenerative Medicine: Mechanisms of In vivo Remodeling , 2014, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[30]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  Decellularization of tissues and organs. , 2006, Biomaterials.

[31]  Doris A Taylor,et al.  Perfusion-decellularized matrix: using nature's platform to engineer a bioartificial heart , 2008, Nature Medicine.

[32]  B. Matthews,et al.  The susceptibility of prosthetic biomaterials to infection , 2005, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[33]  J. Guyette,et al.  Regeneration and Experimental Orthotopic Transplantation of a Bioengineered Kidney , 2013, Nature Medicine.

[34]  R. Reed,et al.  A Review of Available Prosthetics for Ventral Hernia Repair , 2011, Annals of surgery.

[35]  L. Bonassar,et al.  Mathematical Modeling and Frequency Gradient Analysis of Cellular and Vascular Invasion into Integra and Strattice: Toward Optimal Design of Tissue Regeneration Scaffolds , 2012, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[36]  A. M. Altizer,et al.  Are Biologic Grafts Effective for Hernia Repair? , 2009, Surgical innovation.

[37]  Hiroshi Yagi,et al.  Organ reengineering through development of a transplantable recellularized liver graft using decellularized liver matrix , 2010, Nature Medicine.

[38]  Michael J. Rosen,et al.  Major Complications Associated With Xenograft Biologic Mesh Implantation in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction , 2009, Surgical innovation.