Effects of composition and pH on the degradation of hyaluronate and carboxymethyl cellulose gels and release of nanocrystalline silver
Source abstract
Abstract
Adhesions are fibrous tissue connections which are a common complication of surgical procedures and may be prevented by protecting tissue surfaces and reducing inflammation. The combination of biodegradable polymers and nanocrystalline silver can be used to create an anti-inflammatory gel to be applied during surgery. In this study, sodium hyaluronate and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose were added in concentrations from 0.25% to 1% w/v to aqueous nanocrystalline silver solutions to create viscous gels. Gels were loaded into dialysis cassettes and placed in PBS for 3 days. pH was adjusted using potassium phosphate monobasic and sodium hydroxide. Release of silver into the PBS was measured at several time points. Polymer degradation was compared by measuring the viscosity of the gels before and after the experiment. Gels lost up to 84% of initial viscosity over 3 days and released between 24% and 41% of the added silver. Gels with higher initial viscosity did not have a greater degree of degradation, as measured by percent viscosity reduction, but still resulted in a higher final viscosity. Silver release was not significantly impacted by pH or composition, but still varied between experimental groups.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Surgical Sutures and Adhesives · Hemostasis and retained surgical items · Intestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Funding
Alberta Innovates Graduate Student Scholarship · Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada · University Health Foundation
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1067/j.cpsurg.2015.05.00110.1067/j.cpsurg.2015.05.001 ↗
2. 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac07510.1093/bjsopen/zrac075 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.cps.2005.12.00510.1016/j.cps.2005.12.005 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.08.00810.1016/j.ijsu.2011.08.008 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jss.2005.12.00210.1016/j.jss.2005.12.002 ↗
6. 10.1002/bjs.414110.1002/bjs.4141 ↗
7. 10.7150/ijms.1516710.7150/ijms.15167 ↗
8. Fujii S · Hepatogastroenterology · 2009 · 56 · 725
9. 10.1007/s10350-004-0954-810.1007/s10350-004-0954-8 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.16010.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.160 ↗
11. 10.2147/OPTH.S13555010.2147/OPTH.S135550 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ejcb.2006.05.00910.1016/j.ejcb.2006.05.009 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.surg.2003.07.00510.1016/j.surg.2003.07.005 ↗
14. 10.1006/jsre.2001.628810.1006/jsre.2001.6288 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.04.06510.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.04.065 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.02.00710.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.02.007 ↗
17. 10.1021/bm040050m10.1021/bm040050m ↗
18. 10.1002/masy.20085141810.1002/masy.200851418 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.nano.2008.04.00610.1016/j.nano.2008.04.006 ↗
20. 10.1021/jp012548d10.1021/jp012548d ↗
21. 10.1186/1476-9255-7-1310.1186/1476-9255-7-13 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2005.01.00810.1016/j.ijpharm.2005.01.008 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2007.05.03410.1016/j.jconrel.2007.05.034 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.09.00710.1016/j.xphs.2021.09.007 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.12045010.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120450 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.03.02410.1016/j.jconrel.2010.03.024 ↗
27. 10.1111/iwj.1447510.1111/iwj.14475 ↗
28. 10.1007/s00289-007-0760-210.1007/s00289-007-0760-2 ↗
29. 10.1007/s10570-007-9137-910.1007/s10570-007-9137-9 ↗
30. 10.1007/s00396-008-1882-210.1007/s00396-008-1882-2 ↗
31. 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2007.01149.x10.1111/j.1755-3768.2007.01149.x ↗
32. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.04.02010.1016/j.carbpol.2014.04.020 ↗
33. 10.1016/S0141-3910(97)00194-810.1016/S0141-3910(97)00194-8 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.11811710.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118117 ↗
35. 10.1021/ma025988r10.1021/ma025988r ↗
36. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.02.02810.1016/j.carbpol.2011.02.028 ↗