Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41322033›Full record

ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2025

Investigation into the use of a chitosan scaffold for tarsal plate substitution in eyelid reconstruction.

Glyn Chidlow, John P M Wood, Luke A Halliday, Robert J Casson, Shaveen S B Gamage, Andrea J O'Connor, Dinesh Selva, Michelle T Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Glyn ChidlowDiscipline of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Level 7 Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
John P M WoodDiscipline of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Level 7 Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Luke A HallidayDiscipline of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Level 7 Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Robert J CassonDiscipline of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Level 7 Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Shaveen S B GamageDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Graeme Clark Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Andrea J O'ConnorDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Graeme Clark Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Dinesh SelvaDiscipline of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Level 7 Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Michelle T SunDiscipline of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Level 7 Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We previously described the production of hydrophilic hydrogel scaffolds of cross-linked chitosan that closely matched the biomechanical properties of native human tarsus. In the present preclinical study we appraised the spatio-temporal tissue response to the implantation of these chitosan scaffolds into rat eyelids. Acellular hydrogel scaffolds were produced from Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-compliant chitosan and implanted into rat eyelids. Tissue was harvested and fixed up to 24 weeks post-surgery for histological examination of the tissue response to both the surgical procedure itself and to the chitosan implantation. Assessment encompassed inflammation, the foreign body reaction (FBR) and infiltration of native cells into the implant region, along with scaffold degradation. Three days after implantation of the chitosan into rat eyelids, neutrophils were observed in the vicinity of the chitosan but their prevalence declined rapidly thereafter. Both pro-inflammatory M1-macrophages and anti-inflammatory M2-macrophages were also observed post-implantation at the scaffold-tissue interface but the former cells declined after 4 weeks. Unlike the M1-macrophages, the M2-macrophages rarely infiltrated the scaffold at any time point. T cells and MHC class II antigen-presenting cells were predominantly increased at the tissue-scaffold interface and, to a minor degree, within the scaffold, in the weeks following surgery. In the weeks following implantation, a fibro-collagenous capsule gradually formed at the margins of the scaffolds, denoting the classic FBR. This was accompanied by the appearance of foreign body giant cells, moderate to substantial degradation and engulfment of chitosan by infiltrating cells, and localized tissue remodelling characterized by proliferation of fibroblasts, deposition of collagenous extracellular matrix (ECM) material and rudimentary formation of vascular elements within the scaffold. Although the chitosan scaffolds initially elicited widespread inflammation and an FBR, longer-term tissue remodelling and scaffold degradation suggested their biocompatibility. These data support that chitosan hydrogel scaffolds could, therefore, serve as suitable tarsal substitute material in situ.

Indexed as

chitosaneyelidhydrogelscaffoldtarsus

Identifiers

PMID41322033
PMCPMC12664702

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.