Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26067982›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Improved Sterilization of Sensitive Biomaterials with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide at Low Temperature.

Anne Bernhardt, Markus Wehrl, Birgit Paul, Thomas Hochmuth, Matthias Schumacher, Kathleen Schütz, Michael Gelinsky

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Outcomes of ACL Reconstruction Utilizing Supercritical COOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Supercritical COThe Science of the total environment · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Emerging Paradigms in Bioengineering the Lungs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anne BernhardtCentre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Markus Wehrlwfk-Cleaning Technology Institute e.V., Krefeld, Germany.
Birgit PaulCentre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Thomas Hochmuthwfk-Cleaning Technology Institute e.V., Krefeld, Germany.
Matthias SchumacherCentre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Kathleen SchützCentre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Michael GelinskyCentre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
TU Dresden · DEwfk - Cleaning Technology Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of bio-resorbable implant materials is rapidly going on. Sterilization of those materials is inevitable to assure the hygienic requirements for critical medical devices according to the medical device directive (MDD, 93/42/EG). Biopolymer-containing biomaterials are often highly sensitive towards classical sterilization procedures like steam, ethylene oxide treatment or gamma irradiation. Supercritical CO₂ (scCO₂) treatment is a promising strategy for the terminal sterilization of sensitive biomaterials at low temperature. In combination with low amounts of additives scCO₂ treatment effectively inactivates microorganisms including bacterial spores. We established a scCO₂ sterilization procedure under addition of 0.25% water, 0.15% hydrogen peroxide and 0.5% acetic anhydride. The procedure was successfully tested for the inactivation of a wide panel of microorganisms including endospores of different bacterial species, vegetative cells of gram positive and negative bacteria including mycobacteria, fungi including yeast, and bacteriophages. For robust testing of the sterilization effect with regard to later application of implant materials sterilization all microorganisms were embedded in alginate/agarose cylinders that were used as Process Challenge Devices (PCD). These PCD served as surrogate models for bioresorbable 3D scaffolds. Furthermore, the impact of scCO₂ sterilization on mechanical properties of polysaccharide-based hydrogels and collagen-based scaffolds was analyzed. The procedure was shown to be less compromising on mechanical and rheological properties compared to established low-temperature sterilization methods like gamma irradiation and ethylene oxide exposure as well as conventional steam sterilization. Cytocompatibility of alginate gels and scaffolds from mineralized collagen was compared after sterilization with ethylene oxide, gamma irradiation, steam sterilization and scCO₂ treatment. Human mesenchymal stem cell viability and proliferation were not compromised by scCO₂ treatment of these materials and scaffolds. We conclude that scCO₂ sterilization under addition of water, hydrogen peroxide and acetic anhydride is a very effective, gentle, non-cytotoxic and thus a promising alternative sterilization method especially for biomaterials.

Indexed as

Biomedical and Dental MaterialsCarbon DioxideCold TemperatureSterilizationBiomedical and Dental MaterialsCarbon Dioxide

Identifiers

PMID26067982
PMCPMC4466598
OpenAlexW636106727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.