Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:34:54.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital Image Analysis for Morphometric Evaluation of Tissue Response after Implanting Alloplastic Vascular Prostheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2006

Roland Zippel ,
Andreas Hoene ,
Uwe Walschus ,
Raymond Jarchow ,
Torsten Ueberrueck ,
Maciej Patrzyk ,
Michael Schlosser  and
Lutz Wilhelm
Roland Zippel
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Hospital Riesa/Grossenhain, D-01589 Riesa, Germany
Andreas Hoene
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
Uwe Walschus
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
Raymond Jarchow
Affiliation:
Computation Centre, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
Torsten Ueberrueck
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Friedrich Schiller University, D-07747 Jena, Germany
Maciej Patrzyk
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
Michael Schlosser
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
Lutz Wilhelm
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the suitability of digital image analysis, using the KS400 software system, for the morphometric evaluation of the tissue response after prosthesis implantation in an animal model. Twenty-four female pigs aged 10 weeks were implanted with infrarenal Dacron® prostheses for 14, 21, 28, and 116 days. Following the explantation and investigation of the neointima region, the expression of beta-1-integrin, the proliferation rate by means of Ki-67 positive cells, and the intima thickness were evaluated as exemplary parameters of the tissue response after implantation. Frozen tissue sections were immunohistochemically stained and subsequently examined using computer-aided image analysis. A maximum expression of 32.9% was observed for beta-1-integrin 14 days after implantation, gradually declining over time to 9.8% after 116 days. The proliferation rate was found to be 19% on day 14, increasing to 39% on day 21 with a subsequent gradual decline to 5% after 116 days. The intima thickness increased from 189.9 μm on day 14 to 1228.0 μm on day 116. In conclusion, digital image analysis was found to be an efficient and reproducible method for the morphometric evaluation of a peri-prosthetic tissue response.

Keywords

vascular prosthesisdigital imagingmorphometryimmunohistochemistrybeta-1-integrinKi-67tissue response
Type
BIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , October 2006 , pp. 366 - 375
Copyright
© 2006 Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albelda, S.M. (1993). Biology of disease. Role of integrins and other cell adhesion molecules in tumor progression and metastasis. Lab Invest 68, 4–17.Google Scholar
Albelda, S.M. & Buck, C.A. (1990). Integrins and other cell adhesion molecules. FASEB J 4, 2868–2880.Google Scholar
Alkan, A., Erdem, E., Gunhan, O., & Karasu, C. (2002). Histomorphometric evaluation of the effect of doxycycline on the healing of bone defects in experimental diabetes mellitus: A pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60, 898–904.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.M. (1988). Inflammatory response to implants. Am Soc Artif Intern Org 11, 101–107.Google Scholar
Bevilacqua, M.P., Pober, J.S., Wheeler, M.E., Cotran, R.S., & Gimbrone, M.A., Jr. (1985). Interleukin-1 activation of vascular endothelium: Effects on procoagulant activity and leukocyte adhesion. Am J Pathol 121, 393–403.Google Scholar
Bonfield, T.L., Colton, E., Marchant, R.E., & Anderson, J.M. (1992). Cytokine and growth factor production by monocytes/macrophages on protein preadsorbed polymers. J Biomed Res 26, 837–850.Google Scholar
Burugapalli, K., Koul, V., & Dinda, A.K. (2004). Effect of composition of interpenetrating polymer network hydrogels based on poly(acrylic acid) and gelatin on tissue response: A quantitative in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res A 68, 210–218.Google Scholar
Busuttil, S.J., Drumm, C., & Plow, E.F. (2005). In vivo comparison of the inflammatory response induced by different vascular biomaterials. Vascular 13, 230–235.Google Scholar
Carlos, T.M. & Harlan, J.M. (1994). Leukocyte-endothelial adhesion molecules. Blood 80, 2068–2101.Google Scholar
Caruntu, I.D. (2002). Highly effective techniques in computerized dental tissue morphometry. J Cell Mol Med 6, 631–642.Google Scholar
Caruntu, I.D., Scutariu, M.M., & Dobrescu, G. (2005). Computerized morphometric discrimination between normal and tumoral cells in oral smears. J Cell Mol Med 9, 160–168.Google Scholar
Chilkoti, A., Schmierer, A.E., Perez-Luna, V.H., & Ratner, B.D. (1995). Investigating the relationship between surface chemistry and endothelial cell growth: Partial least squares regression of the static secondary ion mass spectra of oxygen containing plasma deposited films. Anal Chem 67, 2883–2891.Google Scholar
DeFife, K.M., Yun, J.K., Azeez, A., Stack, S., Ishihara, K., Nakabayashi, N., Colton, E., & Anderson, J.M. (1995). Adhesion and cytokine production by monocytes on poly(2-metacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholin-co-alkyl metacrylate)-coated polymers. J Biomed Mater Res 29, 431–439.Google Scholar
De Heer, E., Sijpkens, Y.W., Verkade, M., den Dulk, M., Langers, A., Schutrups, J., Bruijn, J.A., & van Es, L.A. (2000). Morphometry of interstitial fibrosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 15(Suppl 6), 72–73.Google Scholar
Frautschi, J.R., Eberhart, R.C., Hubbel, J.A., Clark, B.D., & Gelfand, J.A. (1996). Alkylation of cellulosic membranes results in reduced complement activation. J Biomater Sci Polym Edn 7, 707–714.Google Scholar
Garcia, A.J. (2005). Get a grip: Integrins in cell-biomaterial interactions. Biomaterials 26, 7525–7529.Google Scholar
Gil, J., Wu, H., & Wang, B.Y. (2002). Image analysis and morphometry in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Microsc Res Tech 59, 109–118.Google Scholar
Golden, M.A., Hanson, S.R., Kirkman, T.R., Schneider, P.A., & Clowes, A.W. (1990). Healing of polytetraflurethylene arterial grafts is influenced by graft porosity. J Vasc Surg 11, 838–845.Google Scholar
Hagerty, R.D., Salzmann, D.L., Kleinert, L.B., & Williams, S.K. (2000). Cellular proliferation and macrophage populations associated with implanted expanded polytetrafluorethylene and polyethyleneterephthalate. J Biomed Mater Res 49, 489–497.Google Scholar
Hisai, H., Kato, J., Kobune, M., Murakami, T., Miyanishi, K., Takahashi, M., Yoshizaki, N., Takimoto, R., Terui, T., & Niitsu, Y. (2003). Increased expression of angiogenin in hepatocellular carcinoma in correlation with tumor vascularity. Clin Cancer Res 9, 4852–4859.Google Scholar
Hui, A.Y., Liew, C.T., Go, M.Y., Chim, A.M., Chan, H.L., Leung, N.W., & Sung, J.J. (2004). Quantitative assessment of fibrosis in liver biopsies from patients with chronic hepatitis B. Liver Int 24, 611–618.Google Scholar
Hunt, J.A., Flanagan, B.F., McLaughlin, P.J., Strickland, I., & Williams, D.F. (1996). Effect of biomaterial surface charge on the inflammatory response: Evaluation of cellular infiltration and TNF alpha production. J Biomed Mater Res 31, 139–144.Google Scholar
Hunt, J.A., McLaughlin, P.J., & Flanagan, B.F. (1997). Techniques to investigate cellular and molecular interactions in the host response to implanted biomaterials. Biomaterials 18, 1449–1459.Google Scholar
Imaging System KS400, Release 2.0 (User manual). (1995). Eching, Germany: Kontron Elektronik GmbH.
Kasemo, B. & Lausmaa, J. (1994). Material-tissue interfaces—The role of surface properties and processes. Environ Health Persp 102, 41–45.Google Scholar
Katahira, T., Takayama, T., Miyanishi, K., Hayashi, T., Ikeda, T., Takahashi, Y., Takimoto, R., Matsunaga, T., Kato, J., & Niitsu, Y. (2004). Plasma glutathione S-Transferase P1–1 as a prognostic factor in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (stages III and IV). Clin Cancer Res 10, 7934–7940.Google Scholar
Keenan, S.J., Diamond, J., McCluggage, W.G., Bharucha, H., Thompson, D., Bartels, P.H., & Hamilton, P.W. (2000). An automated machine vision system for the histological grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). J Pathol 192, 351–362.Google Scholar
Klein, C.L., Kohler, H., Bittinger, F., Wagner, M., Hermanns, I., Grant, K., Lewis, J.C., & Kirkpatrick, C.J. (1994). Comparative studies on vascular endothelium in vitro. I. Cytokine effects on the expression of adhesion molecules by human umbilical vein, saphenous vein and femoral artery endothelial cells. Pathobiology 62, 199–208.Google Scholar
Margiotta, M.S., Robertson, F.S., & Greco, R.S. (1992). The adherence of endothelial cells to dacron induces the expression of the intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM-1). Ann Surg 216, 600–604.Google Scholar
Nieruchalska, E., Kaczmarek, E., Jarmolowska-Jurczyszyn, D., & Majewski, P. (2004). Morphometrical analysis of immunohistochemical reaction of inflammatory infiltrate in chronic thyroiditis. Rocz Akad Med Bialymst 49(Suppl 1), 140–142.Google Scholar
Ozcan, A., Deveci, M.S., Oztas, E., Dede, M., Yenen, M.C., Korgun, E.T., & Gunhan, O. (2005). Prognostic value of GLUT-1 expression in ovarian surface epithelial tumors: A morphometric study. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 27, 181–186.Google Scholar
Pribila, J.T., Quale, A.C., Mueller, K.L., & Shimizu, Y. (2004). Integrins and T cell-mediated immunity. Annu Rev Immunol 22, 157–180.Google Scholar
Remes, A. & Williams, D.F. (1992). Immune-response in biocompatibility. Biomaterials 13, 731–743.Google Scholar
Salzmann, D.L., Kleinert, L.B., Berman, S.S., & Williams, S.K. (1997). The effects of porosity on endothelialization of ePTFE implanted in subcutaneous and adipose tissue. J Biomed Mater Res 34, 463–476.Google Scholar
Schreiber, H., Kinzl, H.P., & Thieme, J. (1990). Computerized microscopic image analysis method in tissue–biomaterials interaction. Biomater Artif Cells Artif Organs 18, 637–641.Google Scholar
Setton-Avruj, C.P., Aquino, J.B., Goedelman, C.J., Soto, E.F., & Villar, M.J. (2002). P0 and myelin basic protein-like immunoreactivities following ligation of the sciatic nerve in the rat. Neurochem Res 27, 1293–1303.Google Scholar
Tang, L. & Eaton, J.W. (1995). Inflammatory responses to biomaterials. Am J Clin Pathol 103, 466–471.Google Scholar
Villar, C.C. & de Lima, A.F. (2003). Smoking influences on the thickness of marginal gingival epithelium. Pesqui Odontol Bras 17, 41–45.Google Scholar
Vince, D.G., Hunt, J.A., & Williams, D.F. (1991). Quantitative assessment of the tissue response to implanted biomaterials. Biomaterials 12, 731–736.Google Scholar
Xia, Z.D., Zhu, T.B., Du, J.Y., Zheng, Q.X., Wang, L., Li, S.P., Chang, C.Y., & Fang, S.Y. (1994). Macrophages in degradation of collagen/hydroxylapatite (CHA), betatricalcium phospate ceramics (TCP) artificial bone graft. An in vivo study. Chin Med J (Engl) 107, 845–849.Google Scholar