Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 6.1 Comparison of harvested ECMbiomaterials (commercially available in the
US) for important similarities and differences
Acellular
Acellular Crosslinked
Fetal
Small
human
porcine
porcine
bovine
intestinal
dermis
dermis
dermis
dermis submucosa
(AHD)
(APD)
(CPD)
(FBD)
(SIS)
Intact, bioactive ECM
No
No
No
No
Yes
with known,
(stripped)
(stripped) (crosslinked) (stripped)
measurable bioactivity
Fully remodeled
No
No
No
No
Yes
scaffold (complete
turn-over)
Significant elastin
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
content
Published strength
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
over time data
(preclinical)
Published short-term
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
(<2 yr) data in any
human clinical use
Long-term (>2 yr)
No
No
No
No
Yes
multi-application
published results in
humans
Proven, validated,
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
published anti-viral
safety and sterility
materials harvested from arteries or dermis are much more elastic and elastin-
containing than those harvested from pericardium, fascia lata, or submucosa.
Further, growth factors and other biologically potent cell stimulators vary
widely from tissue to tissue and alter what is even possible to keep present
through the processing steps.
6.3.2
Problems with de novo ECM synthesis
Building a complete ECM de novo is not a simple task. Solubilizing and
reconstituting type I collagen is not all that difficult, but restructuring the
collagen to form a porous, recognizable, and structurally strong matrix is quite
difficult. Most purified collagen constructs are reformed into dense sheets or
films but lack structural integrity and resistance to degradation without strong
chemical crosslinking (Weadock et al., 1983; Charulatha and Rajaram, 2003).
Further, virtually all natural ECMs have been shown to contain various collagen
types other than type I, many forms of glycosaminoglycans, glycoproteins,
