Skip to main content

Quantitative Histopathology for Evaluation of In Vivo Biocompatibility Associated with Biomedical Implants

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Molecular Histopathology and Tissue Biomarkers in Drug and Diagnostic Development

Abstract

In the current chapter, digital morphometric analysis (DMA) was used to quantify two markers of biocompatibility around commonly used biomaterials. In the field of biomaterial evaluation for biocompatibility, more sophisticated methods are now being used to precisely characterize the elicited response from the surrounding tissue towards the implanted material. One reason for this is due to the fact that many newer biomaterial innovations are incorporating pharmaceutical agents (e.g., drug eluting stents and drug eluting balloons). Therefore, as described in many of the other chapters in this book, components of toxicology and pharmacology are being evaluated along with biocompatibility.

In this chapter, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) was compared to polypropylene (PP) for inflammatory and foreign body response. Each material was implanted into dorsal subcutaneous spaces and evaluated after 2, 4, and 12 weeks. Each sample was reacted with an antibody to cluster of differentiation-68 (CD-68). The resulting slides were scanned and evaluated using DMA in order to obtain accurate, reproducible, and consistent results. Expanded PTFE demonstrated a lower overall weighted inflammatory score when compared to PP across all timepoints. This chapter describes the use of DMA as a novel approach to measure the inflammatory score that is associated with a specific biomaterial. Current and future medical devices will need to use various analytical tools to comprehensively assess device, biomaterial, or a combination therapy’s biocompatibility. The next chapter further describes how quantitative data from histology and immunohistochemistry assessments can be coupled with quantitative polymerase chain reactions (PCR) as assessment tools for product development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Williams DF (1987) Definitions in biomaterials: proceedings of a consensus conference of the European society for biomaterials, Chester, England, 3–5 March 1986

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JM (2001) Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Res 31(1):81–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson JM (1988) Inflammatory response to implants. Am Soc Artif Implant Organs J 34(2):101–107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Galante JO, Lemons J, Spector M, Wilson PD, Wright TM (1991) The biologic effects of implant materials. J Orthop Res 9(5):760–775. doi:10.1002/jor.1100090516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson JM, McNally AK (2011) Biocompatibility of implants: lymphocyte/macrophage interactions. In: Seminars in immunopathology, vol 33, no. 3, Springer, pp 221–233. doi:10.1007/s00281-011-0244-1

  6. Kidd KR, Dal Ponte DB, Kellar RS, Williams SK (2001) A comparative evaluation of the tissue responses associated with polymeric implants in the rat and mouse. J Biomed Mater Res 59(4):682–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kellar RS, Landeen LK, Shepherd BR, Naughton GK, Ratcliffe A, Williams SK (2001) Scaffold-based three-dimensional human fibroblast culture provides a structural matrix that supports angiogenesis in infarcted heart tissue. Circulation 104(17):2063–2068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Doussis IA, Gatter KC, Mason DY (1993) CD68 reactivity of non-macrophage derived tumours in cytological specimens. J Clin Pathol 46(4):334–336

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kellar RS, Lancaster JJ, Thai HM, Juneman E, Johnson NM, Byrne HG, Stansifer M, Arsanjani R, Baer M, Bebbington C, Flashner M, Yarranton G, Goldman S (2011) Antibody to granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor reduces the number of activated tissue macrophages and improves left ventricular function after myocardial infarction in a rat coronary artery ligation model. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 57(5):568–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nakopoulou L, Giannopoulou I, Gakiopoulou H, Liapis H, Tzonou A, Davaris PS (1999) Matrix metalloproteinase-1 and -3 in breast cancer: correlation with progesterone receptors and other clinicopathologic features. Hum Pathol 30(4):436–442. doi:10.1016/S0046-8177(99)90120-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Słodkowska J, Filas V, Buszkiewicz E, Trzeciak P, Wojciechowski M, Koktysz R, Garcia Rojo M (2010) Study on breast carcinoma Her2/neu and hormonal receptors status assessed by automated images analysis systems: ACIS III (dako) and ScanScope (aperio). Folia Histochem Cytobiol 48(1):19–25. doi:10.2478/v10042-010-0015-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cole B, Gomoll A, Yanke A, Pylawka T, Lewis P, MacGillivray J, Williams J (2007) Biocompatibility of a polymer patch for rotator cuff repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(5):632–637. doi:10.1007/s00167-006-0187-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Diller RB, Kellar RS (2014) Validating whole slide digital morphometric analysis as a microscopy tool. Microsc Microanal 1–7. doi:10.1017/S1431927614013567

  14. Zhao S, Pinholt EM, Madsen JE, Donath K (2000) Histological evaluation of different biodegradable and non-biodegradable membranes implanted subcutaneously in rats. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 28(2):116–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Voskerician G, Jin J, White MF, Williams CP, Rosen MJ (2010) Effect of biomaterial design criteria on the performance of surgical meshes for abdominal hernia repair: a pre-clinical evaluation in a chronic rat model. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21(6):1989–1995

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Voskerician G, Gingras PH, Anderson JM (2006) Macroporous condensed poly (tetrafluoroethylene). I. In vivo inflammatory response and healing characteristics. J Biomed Mater Res A 76(2):234–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosch R, Junge K, Schachtrupp A, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2003) Mesh implants in hernia repair. Eur Surg Res 35(3):161–166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert S. Kellar Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Diller, R.B., Audet, R.G., Kellar, R.S. (2014). Quantitative Histopathology for Evaluation of In Vivo Biocompatibility Associated with Biomedical Implants. In: Potts, S., Eberhard, D., Wharton, Jr., K. (eds) Molecular Histopathology and Tissue Biomarkers in Drug and Diagnostic Development. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/7653_2014_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/7653_2014_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2680-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2681-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics