DOI: https://doi.org/10.25305/unj.154870

Structural and biological evaluation of new chitosan membrane for dural closure

Volodymyr O. Pyatikop, Anna V. Kravtsova, Oksana V. Kalinkevich, Aleksei N. Kalinkevich

Abstract


Objective: to study the structural and biological evaluation of chitin-chitosan based membrane for dura mater replacement.

Materials and methods. Chitosan-based films were made out of 3% solution of chitosan for the research. We used 200, 500 and 700 kDa chitosan (deacetylation rate 80–90 %) to produce chitin-chitosan membrane by using solvent evaporation method. For enhancing mechanical properties and reducing the degradation, chitin particles were added to the chitosan solution. Chitosan and chitin ratio was 80/20. The chitin/chitosan solution in Petri dishes was dried out during 3 days at room temperature.

To obtain information about the structure of membrane surface and cross-section scanning, electron microscopy was performed.

Hydrolytic degradation was studied by pouring into SBF solution. To determine the rate of enzymatic degradation, trypsin solution was used. To determine the mass loss percentage, we measured the sample weight after 7, 14, 21, 30 and 60 days after being in the appropriate solutions.

Relative elongation and strength were measured by digital dynamometer to study membranes mechanical properties such as the strength and elasticity. MLO-A5 cells were used to assess biocompatibility of new materials.

Results. Macroscopic view of obtained samples has shown their relative transparency with impregnation of chitin particle that elevated over the membrane surface without any diversity between different chitosan molecular weight samples.

Due to scanning electron microscopy, principal diversity between the samples of different molecular weight has being seen: rough pore surface at 200 and 500 kDa and flat with minimal roughness surface of 700 kDa membranes. Cross-section of 500 and 700 kDa membranes are dense with no pores, but 200 kDa membrane are sponge like and it can be prediction for fluid sorption and cell migration during healing process.

Chitin-chitosan membranes are biocompatible and degrade in aqueous and enzymatic solutions. Due to polysaccharide nature of chitosan and chitin, enzymatic degradation has shown higher trend compare to the hydrolytic ones. 200 kDa membrane degrades faster with final mass loss 83.2 % and completely due to porous structure that allows fluid sorption.

Membrane mechanical parameters strongly depend on their structure. 200 kDa membrane has shown 2-fold higher elongation compared to 500 kDa and 3-fold — compared to 700 kDa ones. The compensation of mechanical forces ensured by porous structure is better than in dense ones. Tensile strength was in 2-fold better in 200 kDa membranes than in 500 and 700 kDa ones.

Cell culture experiment has shown the better adhesion at the 3rd day for 200 kDa membrane and minimal cell adhesion for 700 kDa membrane, probably due to smooth surface. The reduction rate between all samples and PCT control differ a lot, except for 200 kDa membrane that has the same proliferation rate as TCP.

Conclusion. Chitin-chitosan membranes, made from different molecular weight chitosan, are transparent and has appropriate structure for being used as a dura mater substitute. They are biocompatible and degrade in aqueous and enzymatic solutions. Due to porous structure, excellent mechanical properties as well as better cell adhesion and proliferation, 200 kDa chitosan membrane is more applicable for neurosurgical issues.


Keywords


dura mater substitute; chitin; chitosan; degradation; mechanical properties; cell culture

Full Text:

PDF

References


1. Pyatikop VA, Moroz IS, Tarasenko VI, Babalyan YuA, Bibichenko SI, Gunko BV, Genkin AV, Teslenko DS, Masalitin IN. [Cranioplasty of bone defects with differentiated usage of implants]. Ukrainian Neurosurgical Journal. 2011;(3):22-25. Russian. [CrossRef]

2. Protasoni M, Sangiorgi S, Cividini A, Culuvaris GT, Tomei G, Dell'Orbo C, Raspanti M, Balbi S, Reguzzoni M. The collagenic architecture of human dura mater. J Neurosurg. 2011 Jun;114(6):1723-30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3. Barth M, Tuettenberg J, Thomé C, Weiss C, Vajkoczy P, Schmiedek P. Watertight dural closure: is it necessary? A prospective randomized trial in patients with supratentorial craniotomies. Neurosurgery. 2008 Oct;63(4 Suppl 2):352-8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. Sekhar LN, Mai JC. Dural repair after craniotomy and the use of dural substitutes and dural sealants. World Neurosurg. 2013 Mar Apr;79(3 4):440-2. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5. Sabatino G, Della Pepa GM, Bianchi F, Capone G, Rigante L, Albanese A, Maira G, Marchese E. Autologous dural substitutes: a prospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Jan;116:20-3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. Islam S, Ogane K, Ohkuma H, Suzuki S. Usefulness of acellular dermal graft as a dural substitute in experimental model. Surg Neurol. 2004 Mar;61(3):297-302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7. Hwang PH, Jackler RK. Lipoid meningitis due to aseptic necrosis of a free fat graft placed during neurologic surgery. Laryngoscope. 1996 Dec;106(12 Pt 1):1482-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8. McAllister JD, Scotti LN, Bookwalter JW. Postoperative dissemination of fat particles in the subarachnoid pathways. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1992 Jul-Aug;13(4):1265-7. [PubMed]

9. Ricaurte JC, Murali R, Mandell W. Uncomplicated postoperative lipoid meningitis secondary to autologous fat graft necrosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Mar;30(3):613-5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10. Laun A, Tonn JC, Jerusalem C. Comparative study of lyophilized human dura mater and lyophilized bovine pericardium as dural substitutes in neurosurgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1990;107(1-2):16-21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. Caroli E, Rocchi G, Salvati M, Delfini R. Duraplasty: Our Current Experience. Surg Neurol. 2004 Jan;61(1):55-9. [PubMed]

12. Baharuddin A, Go BT, Firdaus MN, Abdullah J. Bovine pericardium for dural graft: clinical results in 22 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2002 Sep;104(4):342-4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Hida K, Yamaguchi S, Seki T, Yano S, Akino M, Terasaka S, Uchida T, Iwasaki Y. Nonsuture dural repair using polyglycolic acid mesh and fibrin glue: clinical application to spinal surgery. Surg Neurol. 2006 Feb;65(2):136-42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Van Calenbergh F, Quintens E, Sciot R, Van Loon J, Goffin J, Plets C. The use of Vicryl as a dura substitute: a clinical review of 78 surgical cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997;139(2):120-3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. Vakis A, Koutentakis D, Karabetsos D, Kalostos G. Use of polytetrafluoroethylene dural substitute as adhesion preventive material during craniectomies. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2006 Dec;108(8):798-802. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16. Lavik E, Teng YD, Snyder E, Langer R. Seeding neural stem cells on scaffolds of PGA, PLA, and their copolymers. Methods Mol Biol. 2002;198:89-97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17. Yamada K, Miyamoto S, Nagata I, Kikuchi H, Ikada Y, Iwata H, Yamamoto K. Development of a dural substitute from synthetic bioabsorbable polymers. J Neurosurg. 1997 Jun;86(6):1012-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

18. Esposito F, Cappabianca P, Fusco M, Cavallo LM, Bani GG, Biroli F, Sparano A, de Divitiis O, Signorelli A. Collagen-only biomatrix as a novel dural substitute. Examination of the efficacy, safety and outcome: clinical experience on a series of 208 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2008 Apr;110(4):343-51. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19. Biroli F, Esposito F, Fusco M, Bani GG, Signorelli A, de Divitiis O, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM. Novel equine collagen-only dural substitute. Neurosurgery. 2008 Mar;62(3 Suppl 1):273-4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

20. Costantino PD, Wolpoe ME, Govindaraj S, Chaplin JM, Sen C, Cohen M, Gnoy A. Human dural replacement with acellular dermis: clinical results and a review of the literature. Head Neck. 2000 Dec;22(8):765-71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

21. Oryan A, Sahvieh S. Effectiveness of chitosan scaffold in skin, bone and cartilage healing. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017 Nov;104(Pt A):1003-1011. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

22. Xu R, Hu X, Yu X, Wan S, Wu F, Ouyang J, Deng F. Micro-/nano-topography of selective laser melting titanium enhances adhesion and proliferation and regulates adhesion-related gene expressions of human gingival fibroblasts and human gingival epithelial cells. Int J Nanomedicine. 2018 Sep 4;13:5045-5057. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]

23. Savarino L, Fini M, Ciapetti G, Cenni E, Granchi D, Baldini N, Greco M, Rizzi G, Giardino R, Giunti A. Biologic effects of surface roughness and fluorhydroxyapatite coating on osteointegration in external fixation systems: an in vivo experimental study. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003 Sep 1;66(3):652-61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

24. Liu XF, Guan YL, Yang DZ, Li Z, Yao KD. Antibacterial action of chitosan and carboxymethylated chitosan. J Appl Polym Sci. 2001 Dec;79(7):1324-35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25. Sandoval-Sánchez JH, Ramos-Zúñiga R, de Anda SL, López-Dellamary F, Gonzalez-Castañeda R, Ramírez-Jaimes Jde L, Jorge-Espinoza G. A new bilayer chitosan scaffolding as a dural substitute: experimental evaluation. World Neurosurg. 2012 Mar-Apr;77(3-4):577-82. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


GOST Style Citations






Copyright (c) 2019 Volodymyr O. Pyatikop, Anna V. Kravtsova, Oksana V. Kalinkevich, Aleksei N. Kalinkevich

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.