[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
June 1979

In Vivo Comparison of Replamineform, Silastic, and Bioelectric Polyurethane Arterial Grafts

Author Affiliations

From the Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the Veterans Administration Hospital (Drs Hiratzka and Wright) and the Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (Dr Goeken), Iowa City, and the Department of Surgery, Harbor General Hospital and the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, Torrance, Calif (Dr White).

Arch Surg. 1979;114(6):698-702. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1979.01370300052007
Abstract

• The replamineform process allows fabrication of microporous prostheses with control of both pore diameter and structural geometry by means of a variety of biomaterials. Tubular prostheses 3 cm long, 6 mm inside diameter, and 1 mm wall thickness were made of Silastic or Bioelectric Polyurethane (BEP) with use of a template of the echinoderm Heterocentrotus mammillatus. Pore diameter of the prosthesis wall was 18 to 25 μ. Light and scanning-electron microscopy of grafts removed between 1 and 32 weeks demonstrated that organization and endothelialization of neointima were similar for both polymers, being complete by 4 to 8 weeks. However, the character of prosthesis wall ingrowth was strikingly different: the microporous lattice of BEP was completely ingrown early, but was apparently fragmented by continued granulomatous inflammation by 32 weeks, while Silastic generated minimal inflammatory response and slower fibrous tissue and capillary ingrowth. Thus, with Silastic and BEP, similarities in neointima organization appeared independent of distinct differences in wall ingrowth. The replamineform process is a unique means of studying surface healing and wall ingrowth of different biomaterials as microporous vascular prostheses in a controlled fashion.

(Arch Surg 114:698-702, 1979)

References
1.
Wesolowski SA, Golaski WM, Sauvage LR, et al:  Considerations in the development of small arterial prostheses . Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 14:43, 1968.
2.
White RA, Weber JN, White EW:  Replamineform: A new process for preparing porous ceramic, metal, and polymer prosthetic materials . Science 176:922, 1972.Article
3.
Sauvage LR, Berger KE, Wood SJ, et al:  Interspecies healing of porous arterial prostheses . Arch Surg 109:698, 1974.Article
4.
Malone JM, Moore WS, Campagna G, et al:  Bacteremic infectability of vascular grafts: The influence of pseudointimal integrity and duration of graft function . Surgery 78:211, 1975.
5.
Campbell CD, Goldfarb D, Roe R:  A small arterial substitute: Expanded microporous polytetrafluoroethylene: patency versus porosity . Ann Surg 182:138, 1975.Article
6.
Clark RE, Boyd JC, Moran JF:  New principles governing the tissue reactivity of prosthetic materials . J Surg Res 16:510, 1974.Article
7.
Salthouse TN:  Cellular enzyme activity at the polymer-tissue interface: A review . J Biomed Mater Res 10:197, 1976.Article
8.
Nyilas E, Morton WA, Lederman DM, et al:  Interdependence of hemodynamic and surface parameters in thrombosis . Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 21:55, 1975.
9.
Stump MM, O'Neal RM, Halpert B, et al:  Growth potential of circulating cells in the peripheral blood . Surg Forum 14:301, 1963.
10.
White RA, White EW, Hanson EL, et al:  Preliminary report: Evaluation of tissue ingrowth into experimental Replamineform vascular prostheses . Surgery 79:229, 1976.
×