์ฝ˜ํ…์ธ ๋กœ ๊ฑด๋„ˆ๋›ฐ๊ธฐ
Merck

Chest wall reconstruction using biomaterials.

The Annals of thoracic surgery (2013-01-22)
Daniel L Miller, Seth D Force, Allan Pickens, Felix G Fernandez, Theresa Luu, Kamal A Mansour
์ดˆ๋ก

Skeletal chest wall reconstruction can be a challenge, depending on the indication, location, and health of the patient; various materials are available. Recently, biomaterials that are remodelable (bovine pericardium patch; Veritas, Synovis Life Technologies Inc, St Paul, MN) or absorbable (polylactic acid [PLA] bar; BioBridge, Acute Innovations, Hillsboro, OR) have been introduced for reconstruction procedures. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent chest wall stabilization or reconstruction between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011. Biomaterials were used in 25 of 112 patients (22%) who underwent chest wall stabilization or reconstruction, and they form the basis of this review. Indication for reconstruction was malignant disease in 17 patients (68%). Overall, 10 (40%) resection sites were infected preoperatively. Reconstruction was performed with a combination of bovine pericardium and PLA bars in 11 patients (44%), bovine pericardium alone in 10, and PLA bars alone in 4; muscle flaps were interposed in 7 patients (28%). There were no operative deaths. Complications occurred in 6 patients (24%). Median follow-up was 12 months (range, 6 to 27 months). Three patients required removal of their biomaterials. Two bovine pericardial patches were removed prophylactically at the time of debridement of a partially necrotic muscle flap, and 1 PLA bar was removed because of an inflammatory reaction. None of the patients with an infected resection site required removal of their biomaterial. Chest wall reconstruction with biomaterials is a valuable option in the management of patients with chest wall abnormalities. Early results are promising. Biomaterials may be the preferred method of reconstruction for infected chest wall sites.

MATERIALS
์ œํ’ˆ ๋ฒˆํ˜ธ
๋ธŒ๋žœ๋“œ
์ œํ’ˆ ์„ค๋ช…

Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid) solution, average Mw ~100,000, 35 wt. % in H2O
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid) solution, average Mw ~2,000, 50 wt. % in H2O, electronic grade
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid, sodium salt) solution, average Mw ~8,000, 45 wt. % in H2O
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid) solution, average Mw ~250,000, 35 wt. % in H2O
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid, sodium salt) solution, average Mw ~1,200, 45 wt. % in H2O
Supelco
Poly(acrylic acid sodium salt), analytical standard, for GPC, 16,000
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid), average Mv ~3,000,000
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid), average Mv ~4,000,000
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid), average Mv ~1,250,000
Supelco
Poly(acrylic acid), analytical standard, average Mn 130,000 (Typical)
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid sodium salt), average Mw ~5,100 by GPC, powder
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid), average Mv ~450,000
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid)
Sigma-Aldrich
Poly(acrylic acid sodium salt), average Mw ~2,100