Effects of vascularization when different alloplastic implant materials are used in adjacently with acellular dermal matrix

Abstract

Objective: Autologous tissue transplantation is the best way to repair tissue defects. Autologous graft materials can cause in the formation of scars and, in some cases, a reduction in the functionality of the donor site. This study aimed to ascertain how often revascularization in the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is formed when different types of alloplastic implant materials are used in reconstructions. Method: The Wistar albino rats were assigned to three groups (n=7): various alloplastic materials (porous polyethylene, titanium, tricalcium phosphate, silicone), coated with ADM, were placed in distinct subcutaneous pockets on the thoracodorsal region of the rats, at 7, 14, and 21 days post-procedure, the rats were sacrificed for sampling. Sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin. The degree of revascularization was assessed through the use of immunohistochemical labelling (anti-CD105 antibody). Results: The results indicated that minimal revascularization was observed on day 7, while significantly increased revascularization was evident on days 14 and 21. The use of alloplastic materials showed a significant increase in the number of CD105-positive vessels on days 7, 14 and 21. There was an increase in the number of CD105-positive vessels on day 21 compared to day 7. There was no significant difference in the number of CD105-positive vessels between days 7 and 14 in the tricalcium phosphate and silicone groups. Conclusion: The study concluded that distinct alloplastic implants used adjacent to ADM have no negative impact on revascularization rates. This is the most sought-after objective in the field of soft tissue reconstruction.

Keywords

• Acellular dermal matrix
• Alloplastic material
• Vascularization
• Immunohistochemistry

References

1. Butler CE, King TW. Implants and Biomaterials In: Neligan PC, editor. Plastic Surgery. Principles. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2018. p. 595-604.
2. Atagi TA, Young LV. Alloplastic Materials. In: Mathes SJ, editor. Plastic Surgery. General Principles. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2006. p. 745-768.
3. King TW. Implant Materials. In: Grabb and Smith Thorne CH. editors. Plastic Surgery. General Principles. Philadelphia, PA: Lipincott-Williams and Wilkins, Walters Kluver Business; 2014; 64-69.
4. Eppley BL. Experimental assessment of the revascularization of acellular human dermis for soft -tissue augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(3):757-62. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200103000-00016
5. Nguyen TJ, Carey JN, Wong AK. Use of human acellular dermal matrix in implant based breast reconstruction: Evaluating the evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(12):1553-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.02.001
6. Haddock N, Levine J. Breast reconstruction with implants, tissue expanders and Alloderm: predicting volume and maximizing the skin envelope in skin sparing mastectomies. Breast J. 2010;16(1):14-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00866.x
7. Nahabedian MY. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):1743-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bf8087
8. Rawlani V, Buck DW 2nd, Johnson SA, Heyer KS, Kim JYS. Tissue expander breast reconstruction using prehydrated human acellular dermis. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(6):593-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181f3ed0a

9. Davila AA, Seth AK, Wang E, Hanwright P, Bilimoria K, Fine N, et al. Human Acellular Dermis versus Submuscular Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Multivariate Analysis of Short-Term Complications. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40(1):19-27. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2013.40.1.19
10. Hultman SC, Craft CM. Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix. Operative Techniques in General Surg. 2006;8(4):207-15. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.optechgensurg.2006.11.005
11. Lin HJ, Spoerke N, Deveney C, Martindale R. Reconstruction of complex abdominal wall hernias using acellular human dermal matrix: a single institution experience. Am J Surg. 2009;197(5):599-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.12.022
12. Janis JE, O’Neill AC, Ahmad J, Zhong T, Hofer SOP. Acellular Dermal Matrices in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence. Plast And Reconst Surg. 2012;130(5S-2):183-93. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182605cfc
13. Silverman RP. Acellular dermal matrix in abdominal wall reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(7 Suppl):24-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X11418090
14. Legan M. New Marker of Angiogenesis CD105 (Endoglin): Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Role. Radiol Oncol. 2005;39(4):253-9.
15. Yao Y, Kubota T, Takeuchi H, Sato K. Prognostic Significance of Microvessel Density Determined by an Anti-CD105/endoglin Monoclonal Antibody in Astrocytic Tumors: Comparison with an Anti-CD31 Monoclonal Antibody. Neuropathology. 2005;25(3):201-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1789.2005.00632.x
16. Gabriel A, Maxwell GP. Evolving Role of Alloderm in Breast Surgery. Plast Surg Nurs. 2011;31(4):141-50. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSN.0b013e31823b2c30
17. Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):1162-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c29e
18. Margulies IG, Salzberg CA. The use of acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: evolution of techniques over 2 decades. Gland Surgery. 2019;8(1). https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.10.05
19. Ionita S, Popescu S, Lascar I. Polypropylene meshes and other alloplastic implants for soft tissue and cartilage nasal reconstructive surgery – a literature review. Romanian Journal of Rhinology. 2015;5(18):87-94. https://doi.org/10.1515/rjr-2015-0010
20. Ashfaq R, Kovács A, Berkó S, Budai-Szűcs M. Developments in Alloplastic Bone Grafts and Barrier Membrane Biomaterials for Periodontal Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration Therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(14):7746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25147746
21. Laçin N, İzol BS, Gökalp Özkorkmaz E, Deveci B, Deveci E. Effects of alloplastic graft material combined with a topical ozone application on calvarial bone defects in rats. Folia Morphol. 2020;79(3):528-547. https://doi.org/10.5603/FM.a2019.0101
22. Thoma DS, Gil A, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE. Management and prevention of soft tissue complications in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):116-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12415
23. S AD, P SPA, Naveen J, Khan T, Khahro SH. Advancement in biomedical implant materials-a mini review. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024;12:1400918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1400918
24. Eppley BL. Revascularization of Acellular Human Dermis (Alloderm) in Subcutaneus Implantation. Aesthet Surg J. 2000;20(4):291-5. https://doi.org/10.1067/maj.2000.109553
25. Thakker MM, Fay AM, Pieroth L, Rubin P. Fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene orbital implants wrapped with acellular dermis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;20(5):368-73.
26. Lin AY, Kinsella CR Jr, Rottgers SA, Smith DM, Grunwaldt LJ, Cooper GM, et al. Custom porous porethylene implants for large-scale pediatric skull reconstruction: early outcomes. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(1):67-70.
27. Wong AK, Schonmayer BH, Singh P, Carlson DL, Li SMS, Mehrara BJ. Histologic analysis of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in acellular human dermis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(4):1144-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000302505.43942.07
28. Ribeiro LLG, Bosco AF, Nagata MJH, de Melo LG. Influence of bioactive glass and/or acellular dermal matrix on bone healing of surgically created defects in rat tibia: a histological and histometric study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(5):811-7.
29. Taufique ZM, Bhatt N, Zagzag D, Lebowitz RA, Lieberman SM. Revascularization of AlloDerm Used during Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2019;80(1):46-50. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1666851