Immune Response to Xenogeneic Matrix Grafts Used in Pediatric Surgery

Abstract

Background: Lyoplant® is an acellular, bovine derived extracellular matrix (ECM) that has been used for tissue remodelling and repair in numerous xenotransplantations. The aim of our study was to evaluate the inflammatory response and tensile strength after xenogeneic matrix (Lyoplant®) implantation compared to the more widely used synthetic polypropylene matrix. Methods: Full-thickness abdominal wall defects were created in 15 Wistar WU rats and reconstructed with either a Lyoplant® matrix (B. Braun Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) or a Prolene® matrix (a polypropylene matrix [PPP]; Prolene®, Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany). Animals in both the treatment and the control groups were checked daily for local and systemic complications. Bodyweight was recorded and the possible development of a hernia was monitored. After 6 weeks the abdomen was reopened and adhesions to the intestine were determined. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to evaluate the immunological reaction to the xenograft. Results: Compared to the untreated animals, all rats had a physiological growth and bodyweight curve: No wound infection was observed during the experiment. An abdominal hernia developed at the implant site only in one rat treated with a PPP matrix. All other animals had an excellent clinical recovery and good cosmetic results. PPP animals showed a pronounced inflammatory response indicated by an increased number of fibroblasts. The Lyoplant® matrix implantation induced an infiltration of CD4 and CD68 positive cells. In addition, active neovascularization was found, indicating a remodelling process. The inflammatory response in Lyoplant® treated animals was significantly milder than in PPP implanted rats. Interestingly, some CD8 positive cells were detected in the Lyoplant® group. Conclusion: A xenogeneic extracellular matrix, such as Lyoplant®, may induce an immune response which is predominately TH2-like and comparable with a remodelling reaction rather than rejection.

Key words

xenogeneic extracellular matrix - TH2 pathway - Lyoplant®

References

• 1 Abbas A K, Murphy K M, Sher A. Functional diversity of helper T lymphocytes.  Nature. 1996;  383 787
• 2 Adedeji O A, Bailey C A, Varma S. Porcine dermal collagen graft in abdominal wall reconstruction.  Br J Plast Surg. 2002;  55 85-86
• 3 Allman A J, McPherson T B, Badylak S F, Kullakury B, Sheehan. et al . Xenogeneic extracellular matrix grafts elicit a TH2-restricted immune response.  Transplantation. 2001;  71 1631-1640
• 4 Bach F H, Ferran C, Hechenleitner P. et al . Accommodation of vascularized xenografts: expression of “protective genes” by donor epithelial cells in a host Th2 cytokine environment.  Nature Med. 1997;  3 196
• 5 Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B. et al . Morphologic study of small intestine submucosa as a body wall repair device.  J Surg Res. 2002;  103 190-202
• 6 Bellon J M, Contreras L A, Pascual G, Bujan J. Neoperitoneal formation after implantation of various biomaterials for the repair of abdominal wall defects in rabbits.  Eur J Surg. 1999;  165 145-150
• 7 Chen N, Filed E H. Enhanced type 2 and diminished type 1 cytokines in neonatal tolerance.  Transplantation. 1995;  59 933
• 8 Chen N, Gao Q, Field E H. Prevention of Th1 responses is critical for tolerance.  Transplantation. 1996;  61 1076
• 9 Clarke K M, Lantz G C, Salisburry S K. et al . Intestine submucosa and polypropylene mesh for abdominal wall repair in dogs.  J Surg Res. 1996;  60 107-114
• 10 Disa J J, Klein M H, Goldberg N H. Advantages of autologous fascia versus synthetic patch abdominal reconstruction in experimental animal defects.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;  97 801-806
• 11 Hengirmen S, Cete M, Soran A, Aksoy F, Sencer H, Olcay E. Comparison of meshes for the repair of experimental abdominal wall defects.  J Invest Surg. 1998;  11 315-325
• 12 Jenkins S D, Klamer T W, Parteka J J, Condon R E. A comparison of prosthetic materials used to repair abdominal wall defects.  Surgery. 1983;  94 392-398
• 13 Matsumiya G, Shirakura R, Miyagawa S, Izutani H, Nakata S, Matsuda H. Assessment of T-cell subsets involved in antibody production and cell-mediated cytotoxicity in rat-to-mouse cardiac xenotransplantation.  Transplant Proc. 1994;  26 1214
• 14 Meyer T, Höcht B. Defektdeckung mittels Integra™ im Kindesalter.  Chir Praxis. 2001;  58 685-690
• 15 Meyer T, Schwarz K, Ulrichs K, Höcht B. A new biocompatible material (Lyoplant®) for the therapy of congenital abdominal wall defects: first experimental results in rats.  Ped Surg Int. 2006;  22 369-374
• 16 Piccotti J R, Chan S Y, VanBuskirk A M, Eichwald E J, Bishop D K. Are Th2 helper T lymphocytes beneficial, deleterious, or irrelevant in promoting allograft survival?.  Transplantation. 1997;  63 619
• 17 Roeder R, Wolfe J, Lianakis N, Hinson T, Geddes L A, Obermiller J. Compliance, elastic modulus, and burst pressure of small-intestine submucosa (SIS), small-diameter vascular grafts.  J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;  47 65
• 18 Shalhav A L, Elbahnasy A M, Bercowsky E. et al . Laparoscopic replacement of urinary tract segments using biodegradable materials in a large animal model.  J Endourol. 1999;  13 241
• 19 Smith S, Gantt N, Rowe M I, Lloyd D A. Dura versus Gore-Tex as an abdominal wall prosthesis in an open and closed infected model.  J Pediatr Surg. 1989;  24 519-521
• 20 Soiderer E E, Lantz G C, Kazacos E A, Hodde J P, Wiegand R E. Morphologic study of three collagen materials for body wall repair.  J Surg Res. 2004;  118 161-175
• 21 Strom T B, Roy-Chaudhury P, Manfro R. The Th1/Th2 paradigm and the allograft response.  Curr Opin Immunol. 1996;  8 688
• 22 Szabo A, Haj M, Waxsman I, Eitan A. Evaluation of seprafilm and amniotic membrane as adhesion prophylaxis in mesh repair of abdominal wall hernia in rats.  Eur J Surg Res. 2000;  32 125-128
• 23 Wunsch L, Ehlers E M, Russlies M. Matrix testing for urothelial tissue engineering.  Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2005;  15 164-169
• 24 Zhai Y, Ghobrial R M, Busuttil R W, Kupiec-Weglinski J W. Th1 and Th2 cytokines in organ transplantation: paradigm lost?.  Crit Rev Immunol. 1999;  19 155