ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials2018
In vitro and in vivo degradation of microfiber bioresorbable coronary scaffold.
Article in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Development of a biodegradable α-TCP/PLA/nMgO composite for enhanced guided bone regeneration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bioresorbable Polymeric Scaffold in Cardiovascular Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Performance of Polyester-Based Electrospun Scaffolds under In Vitro Hydrolytic Conditions: From Short-Term to Long-Term Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Preliminary design of a new degradable medical device to prevent the formation and recurrence of intrauterine adhesions.Communications biology · 2019Article
- In vitro and in vivo degradation of microfiber bioresorbable coronary scaffold.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The degradation of Mirage Bioresorbable Microfiber Scaffold was evaluated in vitro and in vivo. The degradation in polymer molecular weight (MW), strut morphology, and integrity was accessed using gel permeation chromatography (GPC), X-ray micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) evaluation. To simulate the physiological degradation in vitro, scaffolds were deployed in silicone mock vessels connected to a peristaltic pumping system, which pumps 37°C phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4) at a constant rate. At various time points (30D, 60D, 90D, 180D, 270D, and 360D), the MW of microfibers decreased to 57.3, 49.8, 36.9, 13.9, 6.4, and 5.1% against the baseline. The in vivo degradation study was performed by implanting scaffolds in internal thoracic arteries (ITAs) of mini-swine. At the scheduled sacrifice time points (30D, 90D, 180D, 270D, 360D, and 540D), the implanted ITAs were excised for GPC analysis; the MW of the implanted scaffolds dropped to 58.5, 34.7, 24.8, 16.1, 12.9, and 7.1, respectively. Mass loss of scaffolds reached 72.4% at 540D of implantation. Two stages of hydrolysis were observed in in vitro and in vivo degradation kinetics, and the statistical analysis suggested a positive correlation between in vivo and in vitro degradation. After 6 months of incubation in animals, significant strut degradation was seen in the micro-CT evaluation in all sections as strut fragments and separations. The micro-CT results further confirmed that every sample at 720D had X-ray transmission similar to surrounding tissue, thereby indicating full degradation within 2 years. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 106B: 1842-1850, 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.