Bioartifizielle Implantate – was muss der Gefäßmediziner wissen?

Mathias Wilhelmi

doi:10.1055/a-0832-3480

Gefäßmedizin Scan - Zeitschrift für Angiologie, Gefäßchirurgie, diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie, Table of Contents

Gefäßmedizin Scan - Zeitschrift für Angiologie, Gefäßchirurgie, diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie 2019; 06(02): 137-146
DOI: 10.1055/a-0832-3480

CME-Fortbildung

Bioartifizielle Implantate – was muss der Gefäßmediziner wissen?

Mathias Wilhelmi

Subject Editor: Wissenschaftlich verantwortlich gemäß Zertifizierungsbestimmungen für diesen Beitrag ist Prof. Dr. med. Mathias Wilhelmi, Hannover.

Abstract

Medizinische Implantate verhelfen vielen Patienten zu mehr Lebensqualität, sind jedoch auch mit Risiken behaftet, die neben individuellem Leid deutliche sozioökonomische Belastungen nach sich ziehen. Steigende Implantationszahlen erfordern daher effektive Maßnahmen, um assoziierten Komplikationen wirkungsvoll entgegenzutreten. Die Entwicklung bioartifizieller Prothesen ist dabei eine zukunftsweisende Option, wie im Folgenden geschildert wird.

Schlüsselwörter

Regenerative Therapie - Regeneration - medizinische Implantate - Biologisierung

Full Text

References

Literatur
1 Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1422-1429
2 Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC, Subbiahdoss G. et al. Biomaterial-associated infection: locating the finish line in the race for the surface. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4 : 153rv10
3 Uhlhaas C. Weil jeder Patient anders ist: Individualisierte Medizin braucht innovative Medizintechnik. Pressemitteilung der acatech, 2017. Im Internet: (Stand: 24.04.2019) https://www.acatech.de/allgemein/weil-jeder-patient-anders-ist-individualisierte-medizin-braucht-innovative-medizintechnik/
4 Yang L, Tan CH, Nielsen TE. et al. Disulfide bond-containing ajoene analogues as novel quorum sensing inhibitors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Med Chem 2017; 60 : 215-227
5 Søe NH, Jensen NV, Jensen AL. et al. Active and passive immunization against Staphylococcus aureus periprosthetic osteomyelitis in rats. In Vivo 2017; 31 : 45-50
6 Jensen LK, Koch J, Dich-Jorgensen K. et al. A novel porcine model of implant associated osteomyelitis: a comprehensive analysis of local, regional and systemic response. J Orthop Res 2017; 35 : 2211-2221
7 Glotzbecker MP, Gomez JA, Miller PE. et al. Management of spinal implants in acute pediatric surgical site infections: a multicenter study. Spine Deform 2016; 4 : 277-282
8 Semel G, Wolff A, Shilo D. et al. Mandibular osteomyelitis associated with dental implants. A case series. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016; 9 (04) 435-442
9 Vacanti JP. Beyond transplantation. Third annual Samuel Jason Mixter lecture. Arch Surg 1988; 123 : 545-549
10 Vacanti JP, Langer R. Tissue engineering: the design and fabrication of living replacement devices for surgical reconstruction and transplantation. Lancet 1999; 354 (Suppl. 01) SI32-SI34
11 Skalak R, Fox C. Tissue engineering. In: Skalak R, Fox C. Workshop on tissue engineering held at Granlibakken, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, 26.–29.02.1988. Liss, New York, NY, USA: UCLA symposia on molecular and cellular biology; 1988
12 Böer U, Schridde A, Anssar M. et al. The immune response to crosslinked tissue is reduced in decellularized xenogeneic and absent in decellularized allogeneic heart valves. Int J Artif Organs 2015; 38 : 199-209
13 Sarikouch S, Horke A, Tudorache I. et al. Decellularized fresh homografts for pulmonary valve replacement: a decade of clinical experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 50 : 281-290
14 Aper T, Wilhelmi M, Gebhardt C. et al. Novel method for the generation of tissue-engineered vascular grafts based on a highly compacted fibrin matrix. Acta Biomater 2016; 29: 21-32
15 Huang T, Cheng J, Bian D. et al. Fe-Au and Fe-Ag composites as candidates for biodegradeable stent materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2016; 104: 225-240
16 Erbel R, Di Mario C, Bartunek J. et al. Temporary scaffolding of coronary arteries with bioabsorbable magnesium stents: a prospective, non-randomised multicenter trial. Lancet 2007; 369: 1869-1875
17 Bowen PK, Guillory RJ, Shearier ER. et al. Metallic zinc exhibits optimal biocompatibility for bioabsorbable endovascular stents. Mater Sci Eng C 2015; 56: 467-472
18 Mostaed E, Sikora-Jasinska M, Mostaed A. et al. Novel Zn-based alloys for bopdegradable stent applications: design, development and in vitro degradation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016; 60: 581-602
19 Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E. et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-lable trial. Lancet 2008; 371: 899-907
20 Makadia HK, Siegel SJ. Poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) as biodegradable controlled drug delivery carrier. Polymers (Basel) 2011; 3: 1377-1397
21 Vroman I, Tighzert L. Biodegradable polymers. Materials (Basel) 2009; 2: 307-344
22 Soares JS, Moore JE. Biomechanical challenges to polymeric biodegradable stents. Ann Biomed Eng 2016; 44: 560-579
23 Braesen JH, Kivelae A, Roeser K. et al. Angiogenesis, vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor-BB expression, iron deposition, and oxidation-specific epitopes in stented human coronary arteries. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2001; 21: 1720-1726
24 Toyota T, Morimoto T, Shiomi H. et al. Very late scaffold thrombosis of bioresorbable vascular scaffold: systemic review and a meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovascular Interv 2017; 10: 27-37
25 Gruber-Blum S, Brand J, Keibl C. et al. Abdominal wall reinforcement: biologic vs. degradable synthetic devices. Hernia 2017; 21 : 305-315
26 Essig H, Lindhorst D, Gander T. et al. Patient-specific biodegradable implant in pediatric craniofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017; 45 : 216-222