Comparative Analysis of Commercially Available Extracellular Matrix Soft Tissue Bioscaffolds.

Simple item page
dc.citation.volumeAhead of print
dc.contributor.authorKollmetz T
dc.contributor.authorCastillo-Alcala F
dc.contributor.authorVeale RWF
dc.contributor.authorTaghavi N
dc.contributor.authorvan Heeswijk VM
dc.contributor.authorPersenaire M
dc.contributor.authorMay BCH
dc.contributor.authorDempsey SG
dc.coverage.spatialUnited States
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-01T22:25:28Z
dc.date.available2024-10-01T22:25:28Z
dc.date.issued2024-09-30
dc.description.abstractDecellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) products are widely established for soft tissue repair, reconstruction and reinforcement. These regenerative biomaterials mimic native tissue ECM with respect to structure and biology and are produced from a range of tissue sources and species. Optimal source tissue processing requires a balance between removal of cellular material and the preservation of structural and biological properties of tissue ECM. Despite the wide-spread clinical use of dECM products there is a lack of comparative information on these products Structurally, some dECM products showed a well-preserved collagen architecture with a broad porosity distribution, while others showed a significantly altered structure compared with native tissue. Decellularization varied across the products. Some materials surveyed (OFMm, PPN, PPC, OFMo, UBM, SISz, ADM, PADM and BADM) were essentially devoid of nuclear bodies (mean count of <5 cells per high powered field (HPF)), whereas others (SISu and SISb) demonstrated an abundance of nuclear bodies (>50 cells per HPF). Pathology assessment of the products demonstrated that OFMm, OFMo and PADM had the highest qualitative assessment score for collagen fiber orientation and arrangement, matrix porosity, decellularization efficiency, and residual vascular channels scoring 10.5±0.8, 12.8±1.0, and 9.7±0.7 out of a maximum total score of 16, respectively This analysis of commercially available dECM products in terms of their structure and cellularity includes 12 different commercial materials The findings highlight the variability of the products in terms of matrix structure and the efficacy of decellularization.
dc.description.confidentialfalse
dc.edition.edition2024
dc.format.pagination1-14
dc.identifier.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39276103
dc.identifier.citationKollmetz T, Castillo-Alcala F, Veale RWF, Taghavi N, van Heeswijk VM, Persenaire M, May BCH, Dempsey SG. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Commercially Available Extracellular Matrix Soft Tissue Bioscaffolds.. Tissue Eng Part A. Ahead of print. (pp. 1-14).
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/ten.TEA.2024.0076
dc.identifier.eissn1937-335X
dc.identifier.elements-typejournal-article
dc.identifier.issn1937-3341
dc.identifier.urihttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/71553
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert, Inc.
dc.publisher.urihttps://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ten.tea.2024.0076
dc.relation.isPartOfTissue Eng Part A
dc.rights(c) The author/sen
dc.rights.licenseCC BY-NC 4.0en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.enen
dc.subjectovine forestomach matrix
dc.subjecttissue repair
dc.subjectplastics and reconstructive surgery
dc.subjectextracellular matrix
dc.subjectbioscaffold
dc.titleComparative Analysis of Commercially Available Extracellular Matrix Soft Tissue Bioscaffolds.
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.elements-id491550
pubs.organisational-groupOther
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Published version.pdf
Size:
2.49 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
491550 PDF.pdf
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
9.22 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles