journal article·2009-02-25

The role of polymer nanosurface roughness and submicron pores in improving bladder urothelial cell density and inhibiting calcium oxalate stone formation

Young Wook Chun, Dongwoo Khang, Karen M Haberstroh, Thomas J Webster

Nanotechnology· Volume 20· Issue 8
Publisher page

Abstract

Synthetic polymers have been proposed for replacing resected cancerous bladder tissue. However, conventional (or nanosmooth) polymers used in such applications (such as poly(ether) urethane (PU) and poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA)) often fail clinically due to poor bladder tissue regeneration, low cytocompatibility properties, and excessive calcium stone formation. For the successful reconstruction of bladder tissue, polymer surfaces should be modified to combat these common problems. Along these lines, implementing nanoscale surface features that mimic the natural roughness of bladder tissue on polymer surfaces can promote appropriate cell growth, accelerate bladder tissue regeneration and inhibit bladder calcium stone formation. To test this hypothesis, in this study, the cytocompatibility properties of both a non-biodegradable polymer (PU) and a biodegradable polymer (PLGA) were investigated after etching in chemicals (HNO(3) and NaOH, respectively) to create nanoscale surface features. After chemical etching, PU possessed submicron sized pores and numerous nanometer surface features while PLGA possessed few pores and large amounts of nanometer surface roughness. Results from this study strongly supported the assertion that nanometer scale surface roughness produced on PU and PLGA promoted the density of urothelial cells (cells that line the interior of the bladder), with the greatest urothelial cell densities observed on nanorough PLGA. In addition, compared to respective conventional polymers, the results provided evidence that nanorough PU and PLGA inhibited calcium oxalate stone formation; submicron pored nanorough PU inhibited calcium oxalate stone formation the most. Thus, results from the present study suggest the importance of nanometer topographical cues for designing better materials for bladder tissue engineering applications.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine · Urological Disorders and Treatments · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. Skalak R · Tissue Engineering · 1988
2. 10.1007/BF0236739610.1007/BF02367396 ↗
3. Atala A · J. Urol. · 1992 · 148 · 65810.1016/S0022-5347(17)36685-5 ↗
4. 10.1111/j.1600-6135.2004.0346.x10.1111/j.1600-6135.2004.0346.x ↗
5. 10.1038/614610.1038/6146 ↗
6. Stokes K · J. Biomater. Appl. · 1995 · 9 · 32110.1177/088532829500900402 ↗
7. 10.1163/15685620677599732210.1163/156856206775997322 ↗
8. Gilding D K · Biocompatibility of Clinical Implant Materials · 1981 · 209
9. 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00123-610.1016/S0142-9612(03)00123-6 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.01810.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.018 ↗
11. 10.1002/jbm.a.2003710.1002/jbm.a.20037 ↗
12. 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00144-010.1016/S0142-9612(97)00144-0 ↗
13. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(200004)50:1<50::AID-JBM8>3.0.CO;2-F10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(200004)50:1<50::AID-JBM8>3.0.CO;2-F ↗
14. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68071-910.1016/S0140-6736(06)68071-9 ↗
15. Uribarri J · Ann. Int. Med. · 1989 · 111 · 100610.7326/0003-4819-111-12-1006 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00155-610.1016/S0142-9612(99)00155-6 ↗
17. 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00020-410.1016/S0142-9612(99)00020-4 ↗
18. Berg C · Eur. Urol. · 1986 · 12 · 5910.1159/000472578 ↗
19. 10.1007/BF0178882710.1007/BF01788827 ↗
20. 10.1016/0021-9797(83)90125-X10.1016/0021-9797(83)90125-X ↗
21. 10.1007/s11661-003-0219-510.1007/s11661-003-0219-5 ↗
22. Lee S M Ha S W Jung I D Go J S Shin B Ko J S · 14th Int. Conf. · 2007
23. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19970915)36:4<550::AID-JBM14>3.0.CO;2-E10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19970915)36:4<550::AID-JBM14>3.0.CO;2-E ↗
24. 10.1106/7TJU-H1YA-4NYT-XL8410.1106/7TJU-H1YA-4NYT-XL84 ↗
25. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199904)45:1<62::AID-JBM9>3.0.CO;2-F10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199904)45:1<62::AID-JBM9>3.0.CO;2-F ↗
26. Gunatillake P A · Eur. Cell. Mater. · 2003 · 5 · 110.22203/eCM.v005a01 ↗
27. 10.1038/nmeth108510.1038/nmeth1085 ↗
28. Ingber D E · Sem. Cancer Biol. · 2008 · 1
29. Zdrahala R J · J. Biomater. Appl. · 1999 · 14 · 6710.1177/088532829901400104 ↗
30. 10.1002/jbm.a.2003710.1002/jbm.a.20037 ↗
31. 10.1089/ten.2005.11.110.1089/ten.2005.11.1 ↗
32. 10.1089/1076327026042411410.1089/10763270260424114 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.07.00810.1016/j.actbio.2007.07.008 ↗
34. Khang D · J. Biomed. Mater. Res. · 2008 · 86 · 25310.1002/jbm.a.31803 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.00910.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.009 ↗
36. Ratner B D · An Introduction to Materials in Medicine · 2004
37. 10.1006/excr.1996.009810.1006/excr.1996.0098 ↗