ArticlePolymers2022
Image-Based Evaluation of In Vivo Degradation for Shape-Memory Polymer Polyurethane Foam.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Shape Memory Polymer Porous Materials: Fabrications, Microstructures, and Applications.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
- Polyurethane Foam Waste Upcycling into an Efficient and Low Pollutant Gasification Syngas.Polymers · 2022Article
- Experimental and Finite Element Simulation of Polyolefin Elastomer Foams Using Real 3D Structures: Effect of Foaming Agent Content.Polymers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Shape-memory polymer (SMP) polyurethane foams have been applied as embolic devices and implanted in multiple animal models. These materials are oxidatively degradable and it is critical to quantify and characterize the degradation for biocompatibility assessments. An image-based method using high-resolution and magnification scans of histology sections was used to estimate the mass loss of the peripheral and neurovascular embolization devices (PED, NED). Detailed analysis of foam microarchitecture (i.e., struts and membranes) was used to estimate total relative mass loss over time. PED foams implanted in porcine arteries showed a degradation rate of ~0.11% per day as evaluated at 30-, 60-, and 90-day explant timepoints. NED foams implanted in rabbit carotid elastase aneurysms showed a markedly faster rate of degradation at ~1.01% per day, with a clear difference in overall degradation between 30- and 90-day explants. Overall, membranes degraded faster than the struts. NEDs use more hydrophobic foam with a smaller pore size (~150-400 μm) compared to PED foams (~800-1200 μm). Previous in vitro studies indicated differences in the degradation of the two polymer systems, but not to the magnitude seen in vivo. Implant location, animal species, and local tissue health are among the hypothesized reasons for different degradation rates.
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.