+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Developing improved tissue-engineered buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction

Developing improved tissue-engineered buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction

Canadian Urological Association Journal 12(5): E234-E242

We aimed to compare alternative synthetic scaffolds suitable for future implantation and to examine the use of an inhibitor of lysyl oxidase (beta-amino-propionitrile [β-APN]) to reduce contraction in these implants. Three synthetic scaffolds were compared to natural dermis as substrates for the production of tissue-engineered skin. For natural dermis, Euroskin was used to provide a cell-free cadaveric dermis. Synthetic scaffolds consisted of microfibrous poly-L-lactic acid (PLA), nanofibrous poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), and a micro-/nanofibrous trilayer of PLA-PHBV-PLA. The latter were all electrospun and then all four scaffolds (three synthetic, one natural) were placed in six well plates. A culture well was formed on the scaffold using a 1 cm diameter stainless steel ring and 1.5×105 oral fibroblasts were seeded one side; after two days of culture, the ring was placed on the other side of the scaffolds and 3×105 oral keratinocytes were seeded on to the scaffolds and cultured with keratinocytes uppermost. After a further two days of culture, scaffolds were cut to 1 cm2 and raised to an air-liquid interface on stainless steel grids; some were treated with 200 μg/mL β-APN throughout the culture period (28 days). Contraction in vitro was assessed by serial digital photography of cell-seeded scaffolds and cell-free scaffolds three times a week for 28 days. All cell-seeded scaffolds were assessed for cell metabolic activity, mechanical properties, histology, and morphology by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The mean fibre diameters and pore sizes of PLA and PHBV scaffolds were 2.4±0.77, 0.85±0.21 μm (p<0.001), and 10.8±2.3, 4.3±1.1 μm (p<0.001), respectively. Oral fibroblasts and keratinocytes were tightly adhered and grew well on both surfaces of trilayer. The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and Young's modulus (YM) of PLA samples were significantly lower than Euroskin (p<0.001 and p<0.05, respectively); only the UTS of the trilayer samples was slightly significantly lower (p<0.05). Metabolic activity was significantly increased for cells on all scaffolds, without significant differences between them from Day 0 to Day 28. There were no adverse effects of β-APN on cell viability. With respect to contraction, cells on trilayer and PHBV monolayers did not undergo any significant contraction; however, cells on PLA monolayer and Euroskin contracted 25.3% and 56.4%, respectively, over 28 days. The addition of 200 μg/ml β-APN significantly reduced contraction of Euroskin compared with the control (p<0.01); however, β-APN did not affect PLA contraction during this culture period (p>0.05). This study shows that a trilayer micro-nano-3D porous synthetic scaffold is suitable for oral keratinocyte and fibroblast growth with good cell viability and minimal contraction. This material also has good mechanical properties and histological analyses showed its ability to mimic normal human oral mucosal morphology. Furthermore, synthetic trilayer scaffolds have advantages over biological scaffolds - there is no risk of disease transmission or immunological rejection and they appear resistant to contraction. We suggest they present a good alternative to allodermis for future use in urethral reconstruction.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057893583

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 29405909

DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.4826

Related references

Intraoral wound closure with tissue-engineered mucosa: new perspectives for urethra reconstruction with buccal mucosa grafts. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 107(1): 25-33, 2001

Development of improved tissue engineered buccal mucosa for treatment of urethral strictures. European Urology Suppl.s 16(3): E1785-E1786, 2017

Tissue-engineered buccal mucosa using silk fibroin matrices for urethral reconstruction in a canine model. Journal of Surgical Research 188(1): 1-7, 2014

Anterior urethral reconstruction in adults with re-do and/or primary severe urethral defects The use of local skin grafts and buccal mucosa. European Urology 37(Suppl 2): 60, 2000

Urethral reconstruction with buccal mucosa and colonic mucosa onlay grafts: experiment with dogs. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 86(45): 3207-3210, 2007

Buccal mucosa grafts in reconstruction of bulbar urethral strictures. Journal of Urology 155(5 Suppl. ): 502A, 1996

Use of buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction in children: a retrospective cohort study. Bmc Urology 14: 46, 2014

Buccal mucosa grafts in adult bulbar urethral reconstruction Five-year experience. Journal of Urology 161(4 Suppl. ): 101, 1999

Urethral reconstruction using buccal mucosa or penile skin grafts: systematic review and meta-analysis. Urologia Internationalis 89(4): 387-394, 2013

Buccal mucosa Ideal tissue for urethral reconstruction?. Journal of Urology 161(4 Suppl. ): 295, 1999

A preliminary experimental study on urethral reconstruction using tissue engineered oral mucosa. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 22(10): 1242-1245, 2008

Clinical Experience with Urethral Reconstruction Using Tissue-engineered Oral Mucosa: A Quiet Revolution. European Urology 68(6): 917-918, 2016

Is tissue engineering of patient-specific oral mucosa grafts the future of urethral reconstruction?. Ebiomedicine 24: 30-31, 2017

Urethral reconstruction using buccal mucosa urethroplasty in the treatment of urethral injury. Hinyokika Kiyo. Acta Urologica Japonica 51(5): 343-346, 2005

A new option for the management of urethral trauma: primary reconstruction of posterior urethral disruption with a buccal mucosa transplant. International Urology and Nephrology 37(3): 521-523, 2005