ArticleActa histochemica2018
A novel surgical technique for a rat subcutaneous implantation of a tissue engineered scaffold.
Article in Acta histochemica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fabrication of polymer blend vascular grafts with enhanced mechanical properties and rapid cell infiltration: influence of micro/nanostructure, polymer composition, and post-processing on pore architecture and bioengineered environment.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Immunogenicity and Integration of a Decellularized Extracellular Matrix-Based Scaffold for the Reconstruction of Human Foreskin: A Preclinical Animal Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Strategies for Constructing Tissue-Engineered Fat for Soft Tissue Regeneration.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2024Review
- Investigation of the In Vitro and In Vivo Biocompatibility of a Three-Dimensional Printed Thermoplastic Polyurethane/Polylactic Acid Blend for the Development of Tracheal Scaffolds.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Addressable microfluidics technology for non-sacrificial analysis of biomaterial implantsBiomicrofluidics · 2023Article
- Evaluation the ability of acellular ovine small intestine submucosa to load and release of mineral pitch and its anti-inflammatory effects.Cell and tissue banking · 2022Article
- A Review of In Vivo and Clinical Studies Applying Scaffolds and Cell Sheet Technology for Periodontal Ligament Regeneration.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Regenerative Activities of ROS-Modulating Trace Metals in Subcutaneously Implanted Biodegradable Cryogel.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Implanted subcutaneous versus intraperitoneal bioscaffold seeded with hepatocyte-like cells: functional evaluation.Stem cell research & therapy · 2021Article
- Mechanical and finite element evaluation of a bioprinted scaffold following recellularization in a rat subcutaneous model.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2020Article
- Trilayered tissue structure with leaflet-like orientations developed through in vivo tissue engineering.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2019Article
- In Vivo Response of Acellular Porcine Pericardial for Tissue Engineered Transcatheter Aortic Valves.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSubcutaneous implantations in small animal models are currently required for preclinical studies of acellular tissue to evaluate biocompatibility, including host recellularization and immunogenic reactivity.
methodsThree rat subcutaneous implantation methods were evaluated in six Sprague Dawley rats. An acellular xenograft made from porcine pericardium was used as the tissue-scaffold. Three implantation methods were performed; 1) Suture method is where a tissue-scaffold was implanted by suturing its border to the external oblique muscle, 2) Control method is where a tissue-scaffold was implanted without any suturing or support, 3) Frame method is where a tissue-scaffold was attached to a circular frame composed of polycaprolactone (PCL) biomaterial and placed subcutaneously. After 1 and 4 weeks, tissue-scaffolds were explanted and evaluated by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Masson's trichrome,Picrosirius Red, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), immunohistochemistry, and mechanical testing.
resultsMacroscopically, tissue-scaffold degradation with the suture method and tissue-scaffold folding with the control method were observed after 4 weeks. In comparison, the frame method demonstrated intact tissue scaffolds after 4 weeks. H&E staining showed progressive cell repopulation over the course of the experiment in all groups with acute and chronic inflammation observed in suture and control methods throughout the duration of the study. Immunohistochemistry quantification of CD3, CD 31, CD 34, CD 163, and αSMA showed a statistically significant differences between the suture, control and frame methods (P < 0.05) at both time points. The average tensile strength was 4.03 ± 0.49, 7.45 ± 0.49 and 5.72 ± 1.34 (MPa) after 1 week and 0.55 ± 0.26, 0.12 ± 0.03 and 0.41 ± 0.32 (MPa) after 4 weeks in the suture, control, and frame methods; respectively. TEM analysis showed an increase in inflammatory cells in both suture and control methods following implantation.
conclusionRat subcutaneous implantation with the frame method was performed with success and ease. The surgical approach used for the frame technique was found to be the best methodology for in vivo evaluation of tissue engineered acellular scaffolds, where the frame method did not compromise mechanical strength, but it reduced inflammation significantly.
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.