Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Biocompatibility and biodegradation of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and an immiscible PLA/poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) blend compatibilized by poly(ε-caprolactone-b-tetrahydrofuran) implanted in horses

Polymer Journal volume 52, pages 629–643 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

This paper focuses on the biocompatibility and biodegradation of PLA and a recently developed PLA/PCL blend containing an in vitro nontoxic compatibilizer based on a low-molecular-weight triblock copolymer derived from ε-caprolactone and tetrahydrofuran. The polymers were implanted subcutaneously in the lateral surface of the neck of horses. Physical examination, plasma fibrinogen (PF) analysis, infrared thermography (IT), mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) analysis, and ultrasonography were performed. After 24 weeks, the biomaterials were removed for histochemical analysis using hematoxylin-eosin (HE) and picrosirius-hematoxylin (PSH) staining. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was employed to determine changes in the surface morphology of the PLA and PLA/PCL blend. There were no clinical or PF changes. IT indicated a transient increase in cutaneous temperature (CT), while MNT decreased after the procedure in both the implanted groups. Ultrasonography revealed edema after the procedure and the loss of echogenicity of the polymers after implantation. Both polymers elicited a foreign body response under microscopic analysis. The PSH technique revealed a fibrotic reaction with collagen deposition around the polymers. SEM showed surface roughness, suggesting a biodegradation process. In conclusion, PLA and the PLA/PCL blend were biocompatible and biodegradable, with potential for use in equine medicine.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings are available from the authors upon request.

References

  1. Nampoothiri KM, Nair NR, John RP. An overview of the recent developments in polylactide (PLA) research. Bioresour Technol. 2010;101:8493–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.05.092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Theoret C. Physiology of wound healing. In: Theoret C, Schumacher J, editors. Equine wound management. Ames: John Wiley & Sons; 2017. p. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  3. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Rome. 2017. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA. Accessed 09 Jan 2019.

  4. Moreira RC, Graaf GMMVD, Pereira CA, Zoppa ALDVD. Mechanical evaluation of bone gap filled with rigid formulations castor oil polyurethane and chitosan in horses. Cienc Rural. 2016;46:2182–88. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20150838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Castro-Aguirre E, Iñiguez-Franco F, Samsudin H, Fang X, Auras R. Poly(lactic acid)—mass production, processing, industrial applications, and end of life. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;107:333–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.03.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Xiao L, Wang B, Yang G, Gauthier M. Poly(lactic acid)-based biomaterials: synthesis, modification and applications. In: Ghista DN, editor. Biomedical Science, Engineering and Technology. London: InTech; 2012. p. 247–82.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Saini P, Arora M, Ravi Kumar MNV. Poly(lactic acid) blends in biomedical applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;107:47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.06.014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dias PP, Chinelatto MA. Effect of poly(ε-caprolactone-b-tetrahydrofuran) triblock copolymer concentration on morphological, thermal and mechanical properties of immiscible PLA/PCL blends. J Renew. 2019;7:129–38. https://doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2019.00037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Finotti PFM, Costa LC, Capote TSO, Scarel-Caminaga RM, Chinelatto MA. Immiscible poly(lactic acid)/poly(ε-caprolactone) for temporary implants: compatibility and cytotoxicity. J Mech Behav Biomed. 2017;68:155–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.050

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaneko JJ, Harvey JW, Bruss ML. Clinical biochemistry of domestic animals. 6th ed. San Diego: Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clauss A. Gerinnugsphysiologische schnellmethode zur bestimmung des fibrinogens. Acta Haematol. 1957;17:237–46. https://doi.org/10.1159/000205234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Söbbeler FJ, Kästner SBR. Effects of transdermal lidocaine or lidocaine with prilocaine or tetracaine on mechanical superficial sensation and nociceptive termal thresholds in horses. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2018;45:227–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2017.10.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Jong WH, Bergsma JE, Robinson JE, Bos RRM. Tissue response to partially in vitro predegraded poly-L-lactide implants. Biomaterials. 2005;26:1781–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.06.026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Byars TD, Gonda KC. Equine history, physical examination, records, and recognizing abuse or neglect in patients. In: Smith BP, editor. Large animal internal medicine. Riverport Lane: Elsevier; 2015. p. 13–20.

  15. Bundgaard L, Sørensen MA, Nilson T, Salling E, Jacobsen S. Evaluation of systemic and local inflammatory parameters and manifestations of pain in an equine experimental wound model. J Equine Vet Sci. 2018;68:81–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2018.05.219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hooijberg EH, van den Hoven R, Tichy A, Schwendenwein I. Diagnostic and predictive capability of routine laboratory tests for the diagnosis and staging of equine inflammatory disease. J Vet Intern. 2014;28:1587–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.12404

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Johns JL. Alterations in blood proteins. In: Smith BP, editors. Large animal internal medicine. Riverport Lane: Elsevier; 2015. p. 386–92.

  18. Jacobsen S, Nielsen JV, Kjelgaard-Hansen M, Toelboeli T, Fjeldborg J, Halling-Thomsen M, Martinussen T, Thoefner MB. Acute phase response to surgery of varying intensity in horses: a preliminary study. Vet Surg. 2009;38:762–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00564.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Redaelli V, Bergero D, Zucca E, Ferrucci F, Costa LN, Crosta L, Luzi F. Use of thermography techniques in equines: principles and applications. J Equine Vet Sci 2014;34:345–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2013.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McManus C, Tanure CB, Peripolli V, Seixas L, Fischer V, Gabbi AM, Menegassi SRO, Stumpf MT, Kolling GJ, Dias E, Costa JBG Jr. Infrared thermography in animal production: an overview. Comput Electron Agr. 2016;123:10–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.01.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nóbrega FS, Ferreira MP, Facó LL, Selim MB, De Zoppa ALV. Uso da termografia para avaliação da resposta tecidual após implante de polímero a base de poliuretana de mamona em osso III metacarpiano de equinos. Acta Sci Vet. 2014;42:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gregory NS, Harris AL, Robinson CR, Dougherty PM, Fuchs PN, Sluka KA. An overview of animal models of pain: disease models and outcome measures. J Pain. 2013;14:1255–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.06.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Waller JM, Maibach HI. Age and skin structure and function, a quantitative approach (I): blood flow, pH, thickness, and ultrasound echogenicity. Ski Res Technol. 2005;11:221–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0909-725X.2005.00151.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Höglund OV, Hagman R, Olsson K, Carlsson C, Södersten F, Lagerstedt AS. Ligation of the ovarian pedicles in dogs with a resorbable self-locking device—a long-term follow-up study. J Biomater Appl. 2013;27:961–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328211431018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Höglund OV, Ingman J, Södersten F, Hansson K, Borg N, Lagerstedt AS. Ligation of the spermatic cord in dogs with a self-locking device of a resorbable polyglycolic based co-polymer—feasibility and long-term follow-up study. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:825–31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-825

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Nair LS, Laurencin CT. Biodegradable polymers as biomaterials. Prog Polym Sci. 2007;32:762–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. ISO. Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part 6: tests for local effects after implantation. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 1994.

  28. Kastellorizios M, Papadimitrakopoulos F, Burgess DJ. Prevention of foreign body reaction in a pre-clinical large animal model. J Control Release 2015;202:101–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.01.038

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ciambelli GS, Perez MO, Siqueira GV, Candella MA, Motta AC, Duarte MAT, Alberto-Rincon MC, Duek EAR. Characterization of poly (L-co-D, L lactic acid) and a study of polymer-tissue interaction in subcutaneous implants in Wistar rats. Mater Res 2013;16:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392012005000146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20:86–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Xia Z, Triffitt JT. A review on macrophage responses to biomaterials. Biomed Mater. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/1/1/R01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Morais JM, Papadimitrakopoulos F, Burgess DJ. Biomaterials/tissue interactions: possible solutions to overcome foreign body response. AAPS J. 2010;12:188–96. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-010-9175-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Nyska A, Schiffenbauer YS, Brami CT, Maronpot RR, Ramot Y. Histopathology of biodegradable polymers: challenges in interpretation and the use of a novel compact MRI for biocompatibility evaluation. Polym Advan Technol. 2014;25:461–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.3238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Veiseh O, Doloff JC, Ma M, Vegas AJ, Tam HH, Bader AR, Li J, Langan E, Wyckoff J, Loo WS, Jhunjhunwala S, Chiu A, Siebert S, Tang K, Hollister-Lock J, Aresta-Dasilva S, Bochenek M, Mendoza-Elias J, Wang Y, Qi M, Lavin DM, Chen M, Dholakia N, Thakrar R, Lacík I, Weir GC, Oberholzer J, Greiner DL, Langer R, Anderson DG. Size- and shape-dependent foreign body immune response to materials implanted in rodents and non-human primates. Nat Mater. 2015;14:643–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/NMAT4290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Fournier E, Passirani C, Montero-Menei CN, Benoit JP. Biocompatibility of implantable synthetic polymeric drug carriers: focus on brain biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3311–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00161-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mandal BB, Kundu SC. Cell proliferation and migration in silk fibroin 3D scaffolds. Biomaterials 2009;30:2956–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.02.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dhandayuthapani B, Yoshida Y, Maekawa T, Kumar DS. Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering application: a review. Int J Polym Sci. 2011;290602:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/290602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Brauker JH, Carr-Brendel VE, Martinson LA, Crudele J, Johnston WD, Johnson RC. Neovascularization of synthetic membranes directed by membrane microarchitecture. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:1517–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820291208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vidal BC, Mello MLS, Pimentel ER. Polarization microscopy and microspectrophotometry of Sirius Red, Picrosirius and Chlorantine Fast Red aggregates and of their complexes with collagen. Histochem J. 1982;14:857–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ribeiro JF, Anjos EHM, Mello MLS, Vidal BC. Skin collagen fiber molecular order: a pattern of distributional fiber orientation as assessed by optical anisotropy and image analysis. Plos ONE 2013;8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008;29:2941–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.04.023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, process no. 2017/10959-4 and process no. 2015/26738-1) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, process no. 132700/2017-4). Also, this study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. We thank Professor Áureo Evangelista Santana and the Clinical Pathology Laboratory of the Veterinary Hospital (FCAV/UNESP) for their excellent technical assistance, and Professor Fernando José Zara for his collaboration in conducting the scanning electron microscopy analysis. We also thank the Graduate Course Program in Veterinary Medicine (FCAV/UNESP) and the Department of Animal Morphology and Physiology (FCAV/UNESP) for the academic support. This work is part of the requirements to obtain a Ph.D. degree by Júlia Ribeiro Garcia de Carvalho in the Graduate Course in Veterinary Medicine (FCAV/UNESP), SP, Brazil.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences - FCAV, São Paulo State University - UNESP, Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil

    Júlia R. G. Carvalho, Gabriel Conde, Marina L. Antonioli, Rosemeri O. Vasconcelos, Paulo A. Canola, Gener T. Pereira & Guilherme C. Ferraz

  2. São Carlos School of Engineering - EESC, University of São Paulo - USP, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

    Paula P. Dias & Marcelo A. Chinelatto

  3. Institute of Biosciences, Languages and Exact Sciences - IBILCE, São Paulo State University - UNESP, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil

    Sebastião R. Taboga

Authors
  1. Júlia R. G. Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriel Conde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina L. Antonioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paula P. Dias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rosemeri O. Vasconcelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sebastião R. Taboga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paulo A. Canola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marcelo A. Chinelatto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gener T. Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Guilherme C. Ferraz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GCF and JRGC designed the study. GCF supervised the study. PPD and MAC developed and supplied the polymers used in the study, analyzed data concerning polymer biodegradation and wrote these results in the paper. JRGC, GC, and MLA performed the experiment and collected the data. JRGC, GC, ROV, SRT, and GCF analyzed the data and interpreted the results. GTP and GCF performed the statistical analyses. JRGC, GC, MLA, and GCF drafted the paper. ROV, SRT, PAC, PPD, MAC and GCF aided in planning and provided critical readings of the paper. JRGC and GCF wrote and finalized the article. All authors are aware of the content and have read and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guilherme C. Ferraz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics

The study followed the Ethical Principles in Animal Experimentation adopted by the Brazilian College of Animal Experimentation and was approved and supervised by the institutional animal use and care committee (006548/17).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carvalho, J.R.G., Conde, G., Antonioli, M.L. et al. Biocompatibility and biodegradation of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and an immiscible PLA/poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) blend compatibilized by poly(ε-caprolactone-b-tetrahydrofuran) implanted in horses. Polym J 52, 629–643 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41428-020-0308-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41428-020-0308-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links