Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental evaluation of new chitin–chitosan graft for duraplasty

  • Clinical Applications of Biomaterials
  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Natural materials such as collagen and alginate have promising applications as dural graft substitutes. These materials are able to restore the dural defect and create optimal conditions for the development of connective tissue at the site of injury. A promising material for biomedical applications is chitosan—a linear polysaccharide obtained by the deacetylation of chitin. It has been found to be nontoxic, biodegradable, biofunctional and biocompatible in addition to having antimicrobial characteristics. In this study we designed new chitin–chitosan substitutes for dura mater closure and evaluated their effectiveness and safety. Chitosan films were produced from 3 % of chitosan (molar mass—200, 500 or 700 kDa, deacetylation rate 80–90%) with addition of 20% of chitin. Antimicrobial effictively and cell viability were analysed for the different molar masses of chitosan. The film containing chitosan of molar mass 200 kDa, had the best antimicrobial and biological activity and was successfully used for experimental duraplasty in an in vivo model. In conclusion the chitin–chitosan membrane designed here met the requirements for a dura matter graft exhibiting the ability to support cell growth, inhibit microbial growth and biodegradade at an appropriate rate. Therefore this is a promising material for clinical duroplasty.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fontana R, Talamonti G, D’Angelo V, et al. Spontaneous haematoma as unusual complication of silasticdural substitute. Report of 2 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1992;115:64–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Calenberg F, Quintens E, Sciot R, et al. The use of Vicryl as a dura substitute: a clinical review of 78 surgical cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997;139:120–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Esposito F, Fusco PCM, Cavallo LM, et al. Collagen-only biomatrix as a novel dural substitute. Examination of the efficacy, safety and outcome: clinical experience on a series of 208 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2008;110:343–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Knopp U, Christmann F, Reusche E, Sepehrnia A. A new collagen biomatrix of equine origin versus a cadaveric dura graft for the repair of dural defects: a comparative animal experimental study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2005;147:877–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beach HHA. Compound comminute fractures of the skull: epilepsy for five years, operation, recovery. Boston Med Surg J. 1890;122:313–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barbolt TA, Odin M, Leger M, et al. Biocompatibility evaluation of dura mater substitutes in an animal model. Neurol Res. 2001;23:813–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barth M, Tuettenberg J, Thome C, et al. Watertight dural closure: is it necessary? A prospective randomized trial in patients with supratentorial craniotomies. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:352–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Laun A, Tonn JC, Jerusalem C. Comparative study of lyophilized human dura mater and lyophilized bovine pericardium as dural substitutes in neurosurgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1990;107:16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang HT, Erdmann D, Olbrich KC, et al. Freeflap reconstruction of the scalp and calvaria of major neurosurgical resections in cancer patients: lessons learned closing large, difficult wounds of the dura and skull. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:865–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yamada K, Miyamoto S, Takayama M, et al. Clinical application of a new bioasorbable artificial dura mater. J Neurosurg. 2002;96:731–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kataoka K, Suzuki Y, Kitada M, et al. Alginate, a bioresorbable material derived from brown seaweed, enhances elongation of amputated axons of spinal cord in infant rats. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;54:373–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Suzuki K, Suzuki Y, Ohnishi K, et al. Regeneration of transected spinal cord in young adult rats using freeze-dried alginate gel. Neuroreport. 1999;10:2891–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jendelova P, Lesny P, Hejcl A, et al. The implantation of biodegradable macroporous polymer hydrogels into the injured rat spinal cord. Exp Neurol. 2005;193(1):1189

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lavik E, Teng YD, Snyder E, Langer R. Seeding neural stem cells on scaffolds of PGA, PLA, and their copolymers. Methods Mol Biol. 2002;198:89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Belgacem MN, Gandini A. Monomers, polymers and composites from renewable resources. 1st ed. London: Elsevier; 2008. p. 530

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jayakumar R, Prabaharan M, Sudheesh KPT, et al. Biomaterials based on chitin and chitosan in wound dressing applications. Biotechnol Adv. 2011;29:322–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jongrittiporn S, Kungsuwan A, Rakshit SK. A study on the preservation of fishballs using chitosan. in European Conference on Advanced Technology for Safe and High Quality Foods-EUROCAFT, Berlin, 2001.

  18. Bottomley KMK, Bradshaw D, Nixon JS. Metalloproteinases as targets for anti-Inflammatory drugs. 1st ed. Basel: Birkhauser; 1999. p. 207

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Muzzarelli R, Tarsi R, Filippini O, et al. Antimicrobial properties of N-carboxybutyl chitosan. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34:2019–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tomihata K, Ikada Y. In vitro and in vivo degradation of films of chitin and its deacetylated derivatives. Biomaterials. 1997;18:567–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu XF, Guan YL, Yang DZ, et al. Antibacterial action of chitosan and carboxymethylated chitosan. J Appl Polym Sci. 2001;79(7):1324–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dreifke MB, Jayasuriya AA, Jayasuriya AC. Current wound healing procedures and potential care. Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;48:651–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. García-Gareta E, Coathup MJ, Blunn GW. Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration. Bone. 2015;81:112–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guo W, Guo Q, Zhang S, Li J. Manufacturing of artificial dura mater with chitosan polylactic acid. Chin J Clin Rehabil. 2005;9:24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sandoval-Sanchez JH, Ramos-Zuniga R, de Anda SL, et al. A new bilayer chitosan scaffolding as a dural substitute: experimental evaluation. World Neurosurg. 2012;77(3–4):577–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim H, Tator CH, Shoichet MS. Chitosan implants in the rat spinal cord: biocompatibility and biodegradation. J Biomed Mater Res. 2011;97(4):395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alleyne CH Jr, Barrow DL. Immune response in hosts with cadaveric dural grafts. Report of two cases. J Neurosurg. 1994;81:610–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Esposito F, Grimod G, Cavallo LM, et al. Collagen-only biomatrix as dural substitute: What happened after a 5-year observational follow-up study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115:1735–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lang CJG, Heckmann JG, Neundorfer B. Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease via dural and corneal transplants. J Neurol Sci. 1998;160:128–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Baharuddin A, Go BT, Firdaus MNAR, et al. Bovine pericardium for dural graft: clinical results in 22 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2002;104:342–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mello LR, Feltrin LT, Fontesneto PT, Ferraz FA. Duraplasty with biosynthetic cellulose: an experimental study. J Neurosurg. 1997;86:143–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vakis A, Koutentakis D, Karabetsos D, Kalostos G. Use of polytetrafluoroethylene dural substitute as adhesion preventive material during craniectomies. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2006;108:798–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sabatino G, Pepa GMD, Bianchi F, et al. Autologous dural substitutes: a prospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;116:20–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McCall TD, Fults DW, Schmidt RH. Use of resorbable collagen dural substitutes in the presence of cranial and spinal infections—report of three cases. Surg Neurol. 2008;70:92–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sekhar LN, Mai JC. Dural repair after craniotomy and the use of dural substitutes and dural sealants. World Neurosurg. 2011;79(3–4):440–2.

    Google Scholar 

  36. von Wild KRH. Examination of the safety and efficacy of an absorbable dura mater substitute (Dura Patch®) in normal applications in neurosurgery. Surg Neurol. 1999;52:418–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Di Martino A, Sittinger M, Risbud MV. Chitosan: a versatile biopolymer for orthopaedic tissue-engineering. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5983–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Esposito F, Cappabianca P, Fusco M. Collagen-only biomatrix as a novel dural substitute examination of the efficacy, safety and outcome: clinical experience on a series of 208 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2008;110:343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Timhadjelt L, Serier A, Belgacem MN, et al. Elaboration of cellulose based nanobiocomposite: effect of cellulose nanocrystals surface treatment and interface “melting”. Ind Crops Prod. 2015;72:7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang TL. Chitin-based materials in tissue engineering: applications in soft tissue and epithelial organ. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(3):1936–1963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The team of authors thank for Robert Owen, PhD student at the University of Sheffield, INSIGNEO Institute for silico Medicine for help with the cell culture experiments. M. Pogorielov was funded by Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science for research visit to The University of Sheffield (2014 yr.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Institute, Sumy State University, 2, R-Korsakova street, Sumy, 40007, Ukraine

    M. Pogorielov, V. Deineka, O. Pogorielova, R. Moskalenko & G. Tkach

  2. Neurosurgery Department, Kharkov National Medical University, Kharkiv, Ukraine

    A. Kravtsova

  3. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, INSIGNEO institute for in silico medicine, University of Sheffield, Pam Liversidge Building, Mappin Street, S1 3JD, Sheffield, UK

    G. C. Reilly & G. Tetteh

  4. Institute for Applied Physics, Sumy, Ukraine

    O. Kalinkevich

Authors
  1. M. Pogorielov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Kravtsova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. C. Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. Deineka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Tetteh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. O. Kalinkevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. O. Pogorielova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. Moskalenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. Tkach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Pogorielov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pogorielov, M., Kravtsova, A., Reilly, G. et al. Experimental evaluation of new chitin–chitosan graft for duraplasty. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 28, 34 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-017-5845-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-017-5845-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation